Ticketing Anomalies - Starting a journey short

[yorksrob]

Since when have the media ever defended the railway ?

Just because the media dosen't overtly say something dosen't necessarily mean that people aren't thinking it. Even on this website, rail privatisation is still a contentious issue with people split on both sides of the argument. The same thing goes for any of the newspaper message boards whenever a negative story about the railway today appears (which seems to be quite frequent).

At the time, even the Tory heartlands were queasy about their commuter routes being sold off, hence Mrs T's initial reticence on the issue.

91107 seems to be about right on this one. Privatisation was rushed through in spite of the public rather than because of them.

As for New Labour, I get the impression that even those who've voted for them don't necessarily agree with all, or even most of their policies

 

[Pumbaa]

As for New Labour, I get the impression that even those who've voted for them don't necessarily agree with all, or even most of their policies

Blue Labour; 1997 voted in because they weren't Conservative. Again 2001. Again 2005. Simple as.

I'm not a fan of New Labour - they destroyed much of what could have been a terrific coup for a working party. However, I will still vote for them in the General Election, as a lot of other Labour supporters will, because they will not take part in installing a wolf in sheep's clothing government. They've narrowed it down to a 7pt lead in the Polls; people are waking up to the fact that voting in the Tories would be something that the country could do without.

 

[Royston Vasey]

The public didn't want it. From what I remember rail privatisation was a deeply unpopular policy at the time, even inspiring the phrase "poll tax on wheels"

No, it wasn't. BR had become a running joke, run-down, and crippled from under-investment after a long recession. Privatisation was a way to obtain that investment and other than the left wing and the unions (frightened of losing yet more of their power) it was viewed with cautious optimism.

For all privatisation's faults, and there are many (replacement buses, high fares, overcrowding, lost services, poor timetabling), much investment HAS been made by the private sector. In many ways I believe the railway still struggles, rightly or wrongly, with a stigma as a legacy of British Rail's perceived faults: lateness, dirtiness, underinvestment and lack of customer focus.

Which brings me back to the topic: the ticketing and fares system is something which should have been sorted out a long time ago. The recent 'Simplification' seemed more to increase effective fares as much as reduce confusion. We see arguments on these forums almost daily, even among relative experts let alone Joe Public, on opaque rules, inconsistencies and loopholes. It's clear from many of Old Timer's and others' posts that some of these have been extant for decades!

 

[yorksrob]

No, it wasn't. BR had become a running joke, run-down, and crippled from under-investment after a long recession. Privatisation was a way to obtain that investment and other than the left wing and the unions (frightened of losing yet more of their power) it was viewed with cautious optimism.

For all privatisation's faults, and there are many (replacement buses, high fares, overcrowding, lost services, poor timetabling), much investment HAS been made by the private sector. In many ways I believe the railway still struggles, rightly or wrongly, with a stigma as a legacy of British Rail's perceived faults: lateness, dirtiness, underinvestment and lack of customer focus.

Absolutely not I'm afraid.

I don't recall anybody I knew at the time thinking that splitting up the railway into lots of different companies would be a good idea. As for all of this private investment, how is it that the railway now costs the taxpayer three times as much as BR ever did? Seems a little bit more than inflation to me. And lets not forget great railway meltdown after Hatfield. BR may have appeared in a few Two Ronnies sketches but as far as "national laughing stocks" go I'd have to say that that episode must rank pretty high up there.

Don't get me wrong - I think a lot of TOC's do a very good job, and as I've said on other threads, there are some improvements such as the arrival of open access operators, which probably wouldn't have happened under a nationalised system. However, as I've also said on other threads, I'm just not convinced the sums add up. BR had plenty of faults - see posts made by me regarding 142's and the Beeching cuts. However, BR was not some sort of desolate basket case - in spite of what the privatisers tried to tell us when they made their trumped up case. It was pretty efficient and did extremely well on a shoestring. I tend to get fractious when it is unfairly criticised.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I know what you're saying, and in many ways I agree with you in that much of the criticism of BR back then was indeed unwarranted. What I was describing was the perception, not necessarily the reality.

I'm saying that the general public didn't shed many tears when it went. It was hoped that the good aspects would stay and the bad would be sorted out by private finance. Have they been? The answer to that is a resounding... 'Yes and No'!

 

[Old Timer]

Blue Labour; 1997 voted in because they weren't Conservative. Again 2001. Again 2005. Simple as.

I'm not a fan of New Labour - they destroyed much of what could have been a terrific coup for a working party. However, I will still vote for them in the General Election, as a lot of other Labour supporters will, because they will not take part in installing a wolf in sheep's clothing government. They've narrowed it down to a 7pt lead in the Polls; people are waking up to the fact that voting in the Tories would be something that the country could do without.

How are the tractor statistics this month ?

You have to be living in a separate parallel universe to the rest of us. My pension has been shafted, my endowments are worthless, and rail fares are high because Labour see the Railways as a cash cow.

They destroyed the savings of many railway staff when they deliberately bankrupted Railtrack and have replaced that with this current regime which is both shambolic as well as incompetent, and completely incapable of maintaining the railway network to the same standard as before they came into being. If you doubt that then take a look at any of the recent RAIB reports.

Labour have been the most anti-rail Party in history, with rail fares rising (to provide them with cash to squander) whilst car travel has become cheaper pro-rata, and air travel is encouraged by expansion and by the exception of taxes on Aviation fuel.

Plans and proposals for new tram systems and extensions to existing tram systems have been costed using petrol costed at $20 a barrel so as to show that there is no overall benefit. What little investment there has been in new routes and systems is directed to Scotland and Labour marginals.

Because NR is not a public Company it cannot raise money is the same way as proper Companies, and thus has to pay a higher rate on the open market, and the loan has to be guaranteed by the Treasury.

All of this in the interests of sort term Political expediency, which is ultimately detrimental to the Country as a whole.

 

[yorksrob]

I know what you're saying, and in many ways I agree with you in that much of the criticism of BR back then was indeed unwarranted. What I was describing was the perception, not necessarily the reality.

I'm saying that the general public didn't shed many tears when it went. It was hoped that the good aspects would stay and the bad would be sorted out by private finance. Have they been? The answer to that is a resounding... 'Yes and No'!

Well yes, I'd have to agree, BR was fairly unloved by the public. I just really got the impression from the newspapers and other people at the time when the various ideas and plans were being formulated about splitting one bit from the other and what tickets would be sold where, the general feeling was more like "Surely they're not really going to go ahead with this, this is going to be a shambles" rather than any great sense of optimism.

 

[Mintona]

The equivalent would be going into Morrisons and buying a bar of chocolate. Except you then want another bar of chocolate for free, even though you have no intention of eating it, and a discount on the first bar because you got the second one.

I hope ATOC close these loopholes. Although preferably by lowering the original fares rather than increasing the longer ones.

 

[Old Timer]

Well yes, I'd have to agree, BR was fairly unloved by the public. I just really got the impression from the newspapers and other people at the time when the various ideas and plans were being formulated about splitting one bit from the other and what tickets would be sold where, the general feeling was more like "Surely they're not really going to go ahead with this, this is going to be a shambles" rather than any great sense of optimism.

That was the feeling at the time, and there was also the expectation that Labour would re-nationalise on gaining power.

There was no chance of Major winning another term and he rushed through the Privatisation in the face of massive objections from Labour and threats of re-nationalisation.

The impact of this was to create the expectation that the network would be back under BR control within a short period, and this led to a number of responsible bidders to withdraw from the Privatisation process. They were looking for long term investment and there were Bliar and Brown shouting from the rooftops that re-nationalisation would happen on the Friday morning.

What we did not know then but were later to find out was that the withdrawal of the responsible Companies left the door open to speculators and adventurers. We also know now that many of those who were successful were donors and supporters and had been given the nod that there would be no re-nationalisation.

Meanwhile Labour continued to publicly state that re-nationalisation without compensation would definitely happen, in fact it was a written committment.

The response to this was that the Financial advisors had to downvalue the various Railway assets in order for the Privatisation to go ahead, and thus these self same speculators and adventurers made massive instant profits once Labour gained power and then revealed that they would not reverse Privatisation.

By the Monday following the General Election, they were backtracking when challenged as to the arrangements for re-nationalisation. We know also know that Labours friends and supporters in the financial markets made massive profits from the whole Privatisation process and since then there has been a too-ing and fro-ing of people between the Government and these various organisations to the benefit of everyone other than the taxpayer.


In fact in the months after being elected Labour pressed ahead with the complete sell off of the whole Industry, something that had never been considered to be appropriate even by the Major Government. Opportunities to permanently take back in South East Trains after that franchisee was removed were blocked and the Management Team of former BR managers who had run it in the interim were prevented from bidding for the franchise.

The one profitably TOC was destroyed in a cyncial and underhand way simply because the senior management's faces did not fit.

 

[dan_atki]

I hope ATOC close these loopholes. Although preferably by lowering the original fares rather than increasing the longer ones.

As I said earlier, the only way ATOC can close the loopholes here is by altering the Conditions of Carriage to disallow starting short when the fare is less expensive from further away. However, such an amendment to the CoC would require DfT approval.

The Routeing Guide cannot deal with blocking a cheaper route as both routes I used in my example above are the two instances in which you do not have to use the guide.

I suppose ATOC could force the TOCs to act to stop such anomalies but at the risk of creating more (remember, ATOC themselves only set the fares within the London Travelcard zones).

Remember simplification and how some companies were reported to have huge back door increases? That's the very lax approach by ATOC in letting the TOCs do what they want as long as there was an 'Anytime', 'Off Peak', and where necessary an 'Advance' named ticket, not necessarily relating in any way to the previous system.

 

[Pumbaa]

You have to be living in a separate parallel universe to the rest of us. My pension has been shafted, my endowments are worthless, and rail fares are high because Labour see the Railways as a cash cow.

So you're bitter!

The one profitably TOC was destroyed in a cyncial and underhand way simply because the senior management's faces did not fit.

Wake up - it's called politics. You have already demonstrated that you have great understanding of the way the mill grinds, so this shouldn't be such a sore point for you. The Tories have committed far worse.

N Labour don't have the best track record when it comes to the railways. However, the railways are not the only part of the country that the public consider when electing.

The simple fact is that the public are coming to terms that Cameron is not "an ordinary chap", and the Conservatives is not the party "for the ordinary people". People's faith in them is being shaken left right and centre. The inability to hold an EU referendum; promising cuts and austerity as the economy picks up slightly; raising threshold on inheritance tax; increasing GREEN taxes... And other issues run deeper than that. The cycling to work for example, with the car behind him for his papers. He paid dearly for that, and will continue paying.

How are the tractor statistics this month ?

8/10 opinion polls showed the Tory lead cut to under 40pc. Dismiss them all you like, but they are valuable indicators. Latest Populus on the issue, only 28% believe the Conservatives have changed, compared to the 52% that believe the Tories are still the party of the rich.

Coupled with that, previous to November, polls and research suggested that people who indicated that they would be more inclined to vote Conservative would do so, not because they felt aligned to their values, but because they weren't wanting to vote Labour. That mood has shifted over the last couple of months, as we've already seen.

A Conservative victory is not guaranteed. While I remain sceptical of Labour holding form, I imagine that unfortunately a minority Conservative government will come through.

 

[dan_atki]

Mod note: Can the politics of the railways please be discussed elsewhere - it's driving this topic madly away from its meaning.

 

[Failed Unit]

Blue Labour; 1997 voted in because they weren't Conservative. Again 2001. Again 2005. Simple as.

I'm not a fan of New Labour - they destroyed much of what could have been a terrific coup for a working party. However, I will still vote for them in the General Election, as a lot of other Labour supporters will, because they will not take part in installing a wolf in sheep's clothing government. They've narrowed it down to a 7pt lead in the Polls; people are waking up to the fact that voting in the Tories would be something that the country could do without.

I have voted party X and will always vote party X no matter what happens!

To me the 80's seemed a good year for rail investment, we got the rest of the HST's and lot of Electrication schemes, such as Norwich, Leeds, Birmingham Cross City, ECML. Not bad for a PM that hated the railways.

The 90's were bad times, yes we got the new South East Rolling stock but that was HSE legislation.

Hopefully we will see some improvements in the next 10 years - not just the talk that we have seen in the last 10 years.

Back onto the topic, there have always been restrictions to stop people from say buying an Edinburgh - London ticket to aviod paying the higher fares from London, even now you can get the £199 first return from Edinburgh - London (Scottish Business Return). You could be fined if you were caught boarding with this ticket at Newcastle. (But if the crew changed at Newcastle no-one would ever know). I don't see what the problem is if you we doing Newcastle - London - Edinburgh, but I know the legal way is to buy a Newcastle - London return and then a single for the Newcastle - Edinburgh bit.

When I was a younger in the 1980's we use to buy Market Rasen - Derby tickets to get around the railcard restriction. It was a saver so at the time it was OK to use it before 10am where the Market Rasen - Nottingham was a CDR and was below the minimum fare. Back in the day it was the booking clerk at Market Rasen that suggested we did this!

 

[Greenback]

Just tp try and bring the thread back on topic, (I have just caught up with it, very interesting debate!), I have memories of this issue form my days in the ticket office a decade ago.

IIRC, the NRCoC were quite vague on this issue of starting short at the time, and the prevailing view of the supervisors when I started in 1998 was in line with Old Timer's. One day a customer specifically asked for a day return from Pangbourne to London, and wasn;t happy when I refused. The explanatinw as that she would be returning to Pangbourne and had got a lift as far as Reading. I called the supervisor, who explained that the correct fare payable was a return Reading - London and then a single to Pangbourne, which we could sell now. The justification given for this was that the ailway would lose revenue as the jounrey being undertaken was B - C, then B - A, not A - C. On reading Old Timer's posts it rang a bell with me!

However, the customer presumably put in a complaint to someone, as a memo was received a few months later from our Commercial Manager stating that the office should sell whatever ticket was requested, even if the customer was starting their journey short. I believe, although my memory is a bit hazy on this, that the NRCoC was later rewritten in order to make this clear.

From this, I think that both OT and my former supervisor were trained under BR, and that things have since changed, possibly as a result of privatisation, or possibly as a result of the 'High Brooms' test case. If memory serves, this was when BR took court action because people were buying tickets from High Brooms rather than Tonbridge to save money as London tickets were cheaper from High Brooms, despite it being further away. BR lost the case, but I can't find anything on the web about it, so I am relying on my memory again here! Any further information will be gratefully received!

To conclude, I believe that there is nothing illegal about starting short, and that this was communicated to retail staff some time ago.

 

[Failed Unit]

Just tp try and bring the thread back on topic, (I have just caught up with it, very interesting debate!), I have memories of this issue form my days in the ticket office a decade ago.

IIRC, the NRCoC were quite vague on this issue of starting short at the time, and the prevailing view of the supervisors when I started in 1998 was in line with Old Timer's. One day a customer specifically asked for a day return from Pangbourne to London, and wasn;t happy when I refused. The explanatinw as that she would be returning to Pangbourne and had got a lift as far as Reading. I called the supervisor, who explained that the correct fare payable was a return Reading - London and then a single to Pangbourne, which we could sell now. The justification given for this was that the ailway would lose revenue as the jounrey being undertaken was B - C, then B - A, not A - C. On reading Old Timer's posts it rang a bell with me!

However, the customer presumably put in a complaint to someone, as a memo was received a few months later from our Commercial Manager stating that the office should sell whatever ticket was requested, even if the customer was starting their journey short. I believe, although my memory is a bit hazy on this, that the NRCoC was later rewritten in order to make this clear.

From this, I think that both OT and my former supervisor were trained under BR, and that things have since changed, possibly as a result of privatisation, or possibly as a result of the 'High Brooms' test case. If memory serves, this was when BR took court action because people were buying tickets from High Brooms rather than Tonbridge to save money as London tickets were cheaper from High Brooms, despite it being further away. BR lost the case, but I can't find anything on the web about it, so I am relying on my memory again here! Any further information will be gratefully received!

To conclude, I believe that there is nothing illegal about starting short, and that this was communicated to retail staff some time ago.

Is starting short different to finishing short? I know people used to buy London - Edinburgh tickets and get off at Newcastle to save money. I think on the 0700 an outbound saver was valid beyond Newcastle, but not to Newcastle. I know the person selling the ticket would never know, and in reality with Newcastle been ungated no-one would ever know anyway.

 

[Greenback]

The NRCoC allows both starting and ending short, providing the ticket restrictions allow it. For instance, if I had an Advance Single London - Edinburgh, imagine I;d have to convince the new barrier staff at Newcastle that there had been some sort of emergency that meant I couldn't finish my journey!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . things have since changed, possibly as a result of privatisation, or possibly as a result of the 'High Brooms' test case. If memory serves, this was when BR took court action because people were buying tickets from High Brooms rather than Tonbridge to save money as London tickets were cheaper from High Brooms, despite it being further away. BR lost the case, but I can't find anything on the web about it, so I am relying on my memory again here! Any further information will be gratefully received!

I can't see that it actually reached a Judgement in Court, which might by why you couldn't track it down. Here's a statement from ORR:-
"17 January 1996 ORR/96/1
The Rail Regulator's intervention in the "wrong kind of fare" row has brought about a speedy resolution to the problem facing people using the South Eastern line in Kent between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge.

Passengers found they could save money by buying a ticket to High Brooms - one stop further - but still get off at Tonbridge. British Rail threatened a £10 fine to anyone attempting to buy the longer journey cheaper ticket.

Following complaints about the threats by BR, Mr John Swift QC, the Rail Regulator, stepped in to remind the company that the recently launched Conditions of Carriage allowed people to end a journey short of the destination shown on the ticket at any valid intermediate station.Mr Swift said : "Having established with British Rail that there were no restrictions on the use of the cheaper tickets bought between Sevenoaks and High Brooms, I am glad to say BR have now backed down and issued an instruction to the retail staff amending the current anomaly in the Fares Manual".

"If we are to retain the goodwill of the travelling public at a time when the railways are subject to a radical restructuring, we must root out these anomalies quickly and deal with them effectively," he added."
[my highlighting]

 

[nedchester]

I can't see that it actually reached a Judgement in Court, which might by why you couldn't track it down. Here's a statement from ORR:-
"17 January 1996 ORR/96/1
The Rail Regulator's intervention in the "wrong kind of fare" row has brought about a speedy resolution to the problem facing people using the South Eastern line in Kent between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge.

Passengers found they could save money by buying a ticket to High Brooms - one stop further - but still get off at Tonbridge. British Rail threatened a £10 fine to anyone attempting to buy the longer journey cheaper ticket.

Following complaints about the threats by BR, Mr John Swift QC, the Rail Regulator, stepped in to remind the company that the recently launched Conditions of Carriage allowed people to end a journey short of the destination shown on the ticket at any valid intermediate station.Mr Swift said : "Having established with British Rail that there were no restrictions on the use of the cheaper tickets bought between Sevenoaks and High Brooms, I am glad to say BR have now backed down and issued an instruction to the retail staff amending the current anomaly in the Fares Manual".

"If we are to retain the goodwill of the travelling public at a time when the railways are subject to a radical restructuring, we must root out these anomalies quickly and deal with them effectively," he added."
[my highlighting]

That settles it then. That was the case I thinking of a few posts ago.

Old Timer needs to eat some of that humble pie?!!

 

[Old Timer]

That settles it then. That was the case I thinking of a few posts ago.

Old Timer needs to eat some of that humble pie?!!

I rather think you do

You highlighted a case that referred to ending short.

You seem to be determined to have a pop.mostly sarcastic, don't know why. Maybe you can enlighten us ?

Finally, do you normally do this, not check your facts before rushing into print ?

 

[nedchester]

I rather think you do

You highlighted a case that referred to ending short.

Do you normally do this, not check your facts ?

I believe the actual case was one of people getting a season ticket from High Brooms to London rather than Tonbridge to London i.e. starting short. BR (as was ) tried to penalty fare passengers and lost.

 

[Old Timer]

I believe the actual case was one of people getting a season ticket from High Brooms to London rather than Tonbridge to London i.e. starting short. BR (as was ) tried to penalty fare passengers and lost.

There is no restriction on season tickets of that nature and never has been. The case also revolved around a new set of Conditions of Carriage that had been issued. The Rail Regulators statement suggest the matter was resolved by fare adjustment.

 

[nedchester]

There is no restriction on season tickets of that nature and never has been. The case also revolved around a new set of Conditions of Carriage that had been issued. The Rail Regulators statement suggest the matter was resolved by fare adjustment.

But hang on you've been saying that if you buy a ticket from C to A with the intention of only travelling from B to A when the C to A ticket is cheaper than B to A) it is theft or some such nonsense. What's the difference between a season ticket and a CDR? The 'intent' is there to 'evade the correct fare' (your words).

But as we know it is permitted to start short on a CDR (and may even be so on a SVR but that is not so clear), it is permitted in the NCoC.

 

[SWT Driver]

Look I know that the commuters around here who travel to Guildford actually buy a ticket to the next station Farncombe, which means it's cheaper and that they can just say they're breaking their journey if asked. Yeah Right!

 

[Mojo]

Look I know that the commuters around here who travel to Guildford actually buy a ticket to the next station Farncombe, which means it's cheaper and that they can just say they're breaking their journey if asked.

Which is permitted according to the CofC.

 

[Old Timer]

But hang on you've been saying that if you buy a ticket from C to A with the intention of only travelling from B to A when the C to A ticket is cheaper than B to A) it is theft or some such nonsense. What's the difference between a season ticket and a CDR? The 'intent' is there to 'evade the correct fare' (your words).

But as we know it is permitted to start short on a CDR (and may even be so on a SVR but that is not so clear), it is permitted in the NCoC.

Tell you what.

Why don't you read my posts properly?

 

[nedchester]

Tell you what.

Why don't you read my posts properly?

I did thanks.

And you can read the NCoC!

 

[Old Timer]

I did thanks.

And you can read the NCoC!

If you had, you would have realised that the debate concerned cheaper tickets, not any ticket per se.

I am not interested in getting into a dispute with you, but for some strange reason you seem to wish to with me.

Life is too short to be bothered with this and I have far too many other things to do.

Goodbye

 

[Mojo]

It's irrelevant that the ticket is cheaper or not. The CofC has made no such distinction; and this was backed up by the former Rail Regulator over 10 years ago.

 

[krus_aragon]

I think I may have an insight here. The 1889 act (which I assume is still on the statute books as Old Timer says: a trawl through opsi.gov.uk would confirm that) refers to the fare for travel between two stations. The NRCoC, however, talk about holding a valid ticket for the journey made.

I agree with OT that the 1889 act makes starting short illegal. Following the letter of the law, it also makes stopping short illegal, in having paid either less than the fare for the actual journey, or perhaps having paid more. (i.e. overpayment is not the 'correct' fare)

However, the train companies have published their conditions of carriage that allow people to make journies that vary from that stated on their ticket, as long as the ticket is 'valid' for the journey made, or more expensive than the correct valid ticket (except Advance fares and other individual restrictions). This really mucks up the 'station-to-station fare' of law, and, as the conversations OT had with ATOC suggest, they were probably unaware of its existence.

So what would happen in court? Given that the TOC has given contractual permission in the CoC for passengers to start/stop their journey at intermediate stations, I expect that a case where they would seek to gain monetarily from someone who followed these terms to be thrown out, perhaps with the suggestion the TOC was attempting to obtain money by deception. I am not, however, a lawyer or legal expert.

So in summary I think OT is right, but that any cases raised by a TOC should be disregarded because of the terms that they agree to in the NRCoC. Any other railway operator (e.g. heritage) that do not follow the CoC would be able to prosecute people under the 1889 act.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Privatisation has only served to create more anomolies as different TOCs raise their fares by differing amounts, a classic example is Havant to London.

Havant to London Terminals CDR 28.40 (Priced by SWT)
Emsworth to London Terminals CDR 23.00 and valid via Havant (Priced by Southern)

Similar differentials apply to SDR, SVR, ODT and ADT. The result is that anyone travelling from Havant is sold a ticket from Emsworth, importantly in this instance the booking office staff at Havant will frequently offer this fare without the customer specifically asking for it. SWT is losing a great deal of money as a result but nothing can be done unless a BoJ restriction is added or unless a 'Rte Not Havant' is created.

Until either of these happens the anomoly will remain and customers will be free to take advantage. I appreciate the point that Old Timer is trying to make but customers can't be accused of deception if the ticket office staff are advocating the use of the cheaper fare.