Returns cheaper one way but cost more the other

[wintonian]

Has anyone found a solution to the problem of return tickets from B -> A being cheaper then those A -> B when you want to travel from A -> B

For example Winchester -> Waterloo SDR: £35.65 when Waterloo -> Winchester SDR is £19.65

The relevant part of the the NCOC is:

17. Using a return ticket
A return ticket (including a two-part return ticket) is only valid for the outward
journey shown on that ticket if the ticket is completely unused. You may not use the outward part of a return ticket after you have used the return part.

If there is a thread with a solution please point me in that direction.

 

[tony_mac]

Can you put the names of the stations in please? it makes it easier for other people to follow.

It is probably, in this case, that they do not wish to restrict morning peak tickets going out of London, but do restrict them going into London.

They normally do this with different restrictions on the restriction code.

But, no, you can't use them the wrong way round. If you are making more than one journey then you can get round it on subsequent tickets by using both outward portions first - but this is pointless for a day ticket!

 

[MCR247]

What if he only used the return portion, and then bought a single back to winchester if that worked out cheaper? Because the guard couldn't know he'd not used the outward portion

 

[wintonian]

A super off peak single is £17.30 + £19.65 = £36.95

I don't think looking at the NCOC that there is anything stopping you from using the return part and not useing the outward part.

oddly though looking at this:

17. Using a return ticket
A return ticket (including a two-part return ticket) is only valid for the outward
journey shown on that ticket if the ticket is completely unused. You may not use the outward part of a return ticket after you have used the return part.

It seems to contridict this bit:

16. Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediate stations
You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return
ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you
want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return
ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket.

In that S.17 seems to say if you break your journey going out then you can't continue to use the outward part as it has been partly used.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've managed to save a little bit by useing the return part of a London -> Winchester SDR £19.65, Southern Daysave £10.00 and a single from Southampton -> Winchester £3.45 totaling £33.10.

Not much and not worth the hassle though.

 

[Mojo]

Most tickets involving London work out cheaper leaving London than entering. Another example I can think of is Peterborough - York, there is an Off-peak Day return, valid weekends only at £30.50, but in the other direction no ticket exists.

 

[jopsuk]

wintonian- I think you're reading something into #16 which isn't there?

Essentially, the different prices and section 17 are used for traffic shaping.

 

[LondonLarry]

It's down road pricing which started under BR. They priced according to demand. As there is a very high demand for travel towards London, prices are higher than travel from London.

 

[tony_mac]

In that S.17 seems to say if you break your journey going out then you can't continue to use the outward part as it has been partly used.

Well, it does literally say that in the first sentence, but that would be crazy, and the next bit 'You may not use the outward part of a return ticket after you have used the return part ' does clarify the meaning.

I have seen that people do get caught doing this from time to time. (more likely with an Anytime return, where the outward is valid for 5 days).

 

[Bedpan]

A couple of years ago I found this when I had to take a car to Havant and return to Harpenden by train, it was a couple of pounds cheaper to buy a CDR from Harpenden to Havant (or Portsmouth Harbour) than a single from Havant to Harpenden, so that's what I did,. I wasn't breaking any rules as I never intended using the outbound part of the ticket anyway.

I looked the prices up just now, and its gone the other way round!! OP single HPD - HAV now £32.50 and OP return HAV - HPD is now £31.50.

 

[transportphoto]

Would it be easier to buy from a ticket office or online - ask for a Return from B -> A instead of asking for a Return from A -> B and use the RTN section before the OUT.

(It would work for Day Returns any way at least)

 

[jopsuk]

Technically, you're then in breach of Section 17 of the NCOC, as quoted above.

Not sure if guards/conductors/ticket examiners ever actually check.

You don't actually have to have the "OUT" part of a ticket with you to use a "RTN" part, do you? I'm sure I've had "OUT" parts swallowed by barriers. So, if you wanted to break S 17, simply keep the OUT in another pocket? Not that I'm condoning this action.

 

[transportphoto]

In that case I broke section 17 the other day as my OUT section was swallowed by the barriers at the station. Maybe we should petition for all barriers to 'spit' tickets out the top instead of some to swallow and some reject.

And who (guards / RPI's etc...) would know the difference if a ticket has been used or not if it has not been cancelled?

and what about the people leaving OUT tickets on the train after they had used it at non-barrier stns???

 

[north]

In that case I broke section 17 the other day as my OUT section was swallowed by the barriers at the station. Maybe we should petition for all barriers to 'spit' tickets out the top instead of some to swallow and some reject.

And who (guards / RPI's etc...) would know the difference if a ticket has been used or not if it has not been cancelled?

and what about the people leaving OUT tickets on the train after they had used it at non-barrier stns???

That's not how I understand it.... As far as I can tell the OUTWARD portion can only be used if the RETURN is unused (and available for inspection). The RETURN portion can be used on its own.

 

[wintonian]

Well, it does literally say that in the first sentence, but that would be crazy, and the next bit 'You may not use the outward part of a return ticket after you have used the return part ' does clarify the meaning.

I have seen that people do get caught doing this from time to time. (more likely with an Anytime return, where the outward is valid for 5 days).

I am more than likley reading too much in to S.17.

Technically, you're then in breach of Section 17 of the NCOC, as quoted above.

Not sure if guards/conductors/ticket examiners ever actually check.

You don't actually have to have the "OUT" part of a ticket with you to use a "RTN" part, do you? I'm sure I've had "OUT" parts swallowed by barriers. So, if you wanted to break S 17, simply keep the OUT in another pocket? Not that I'm condoning this action.

This could cause issues on the way back when useing the 'OUT' part as in theory you could be asked to produce the 'RETURN'.

That's not how I understand it.... As far as I can tell the OUTWARD portion can only be used if the RETURN is compleatly unused (and available for inspection). The RETURN portion can be used on its own.

This how I understand it as well (my bold)

AFAIK you can use the 'RETURN' part first as long as you don't then use the 'OUT' part.

 

[Helvellyn]

But you do have to produce the RTN portion if asked to when using the Outward portion.

Oh, and you can face some interesting questions if using a RTN portion of a Day Return ticket on the first train of the day!

 

[wintonian]

Oh, and you can face some interesting questions if using a RTN portion of a Day Return ticket on the first train of the day!

Maybe, but technically you can use the RTN on the first train of the day as long as you don't then later use the OUT part.

 

[royaloak]

So the TM would be within his rights to cancel both parts of the ticket.

 

[wintonian]

Obviously if a ticket is used in breech of it's validity then yes it can withdrawn.

Everyone, myself included seems to be assuming that when using the OUT part a TM may request/ demand to see the RTN.

I think this assumption is beaing made as an OUT is only valid if the return is unused.

However the NCOC only seem to state that a TM has a right to request/ demand to see a valid ticket not proof that the ticket is valid apart from checking any railcard/ ID it was bought with etc.

22. Inspection of tickets
You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company or its agent, hand over for inspection a valid ticket and any relevant Railcard, photocard or other form of
personal identification in accordance with Condition 15. If you do not, you will be treated as having joined a train without a ticket and the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply. If an Electronic Ticket cannot be displayed, you will be treated as if you were unable to hand over for inspection a valid ticket.

 

[43167]

This is a new one to me. But surprised to find out its very much true.

Just looked up for a Peterborough-York/Leeds Day return for a saturday. Then for otherway, sure enough its over £20 more for the cheapest available walk up fare.

How can this be right?. It should be the same both ways.

 

[wintonian]

I'ts all about supply and demand.

But if you are on the popular/ wrong end of it then it does seem a bit unfair that someone doing exactly the same journey as you (just the other way round) will pay what can be a lot less.

 

[142094]

I can see York - Peterborough for this Saturday priced as £50.80 for a Super Off Peak Single, and a Peterborough - York Off Peak Day Single as £30.40. So you are quite right, a £20 saving.

 

[wintonian]

You don't actually have to have the "OUT" part of a ticket with you to use a "RTN" part, do you? I'm sure I've had "OUT" parts swallowed by barriers. So, if you wanted to break S 17, simply keep the OUT in another pocket? Not that I'm condoning this action.

Just re-read your post after mis reading it before.

Yes, your right SWT barriers (except Waterloo) do seem to swallow your OUT part when you put them through at the destination stated on the ticket.

In that case I am assuming I am right when I say that a TM/ revenue person etc. can't demand to see your OUT ticket as well, perticualy if there is a valid reason for you not having it i.e it was retaind by the TOC.

 

[yorkie]

If I want a single to Peterborough, I see nothing within the rules that prevents me buying a Peterborough - York return and only using the return portion, saving a lot of money. I also see nothing morally wrong with that whatsoever.

Is it morally wrong to use a RTN before an OUT? That's not the same as only using the RTN portion as it does break the conditions. It's debateable. The alternative to train travel is the car for many people. If I sold you petrol and said that you must not use it for a day trip to London or I'd charge you more, would you feel it is morally wrong to disobey me? Different people will have different views. Not much point debating which is right and which is wrong as it is subjective. I've not expressed my view on doing that in this post, but I have my views and I'm happy with them.

But to answer the question about the rules, you are not allowed to use the OUT after the RTN, but I see nothing wrong with only using the RTN. I am not going to discuss how enforceable it is, other than to say the only time I have ever been asked to show a RTN portion is when using an OUT portion on a day after the first day of validity (and I would expect to be asked in those circumstances).

 

[MCR247]

If you only use the return, how would they know you haven't used the OUT unless
-You board a really early train where you couldn't have got to that day

you could just say you don't have it, because you threw it away

 

[yorkie]

If you only use the return, how would they know you haven't used the OUT unless
-You board a really early train where you couldn't have got to that day

you could just say you don't have it, because you threw it away

They can't know, and there is no requrement to hold the outward portion (obviously) when using the return. So a return portion alone is all that is required and it is valid and must be accepted.

The only potential problem ( if someone uses the RTN first ) is on their way back they are using the OUT portion and are not in posession of an unused RTN portion. But I've never ever known a guard ask to see a RTN portion when using an OUT portion, providing the OUT portion is used on the first (or only, in the case of Day tickets) day of validity.

 

[wintonian]

They can't know, and there is no requrement to hold the outward portion (obviously) when using the return. So a return portion alone is all that is required and it is valid and must be accepted.

The only potential problem ( if someone uses the RTN first ) is on their way back they are using the OUT portion and are not in posession of an unused RTN portion. But I've never ever known a guard ask to see a RTN portion when using an OUT portion, providing the OUT portion is used on the first (or only, in the case of Day tickets) day of validity.

I appreciate that you don’t wish to discuss how enforceable the issue is, but is there a requirement to hold and to then produce the return portion if requested, when travelling on the out portion - regardless of whether anything can be enforced or not?

 

[yorkie]

I appreciate that you don’t wish to discuss how enforceable the issue is, but is there a requirement to hold and to then produce the return portion if requested, when travelling on the out portion - regardless of whether anything can be enforced or not?

Apparently so, yes.

Simplification is to blame!

Before Simplification, my recollection is that the rule that the return portion must be held when travelling on the outward portion didn't exist except for Standard Open Returns (SORs), now named Anytime (but still with the code SOR). However the rule wasn't documented anywhere that was in the public domain, if I recall correctly. It was hidden away in the Fares Manuals. The reason for the existence of it for SORs was because SORs used to be valid for a month on both portions, and obviously there was more risk of someone re-using the outward portion at a later date. So the rule was quite understandable and if using the outward portion on a date after the first day of validity then it would be quite reasonable to expect the guard to ask to see the return portion. I was once asked for the return portion in that scenario. My personal experience is that I have never been asked, and never known anyone be asked, to show the return portion when using the outward portion on the first day of validity.

When Simplification came about, the rule was mentioned publicly for the first time, but the surprise is that the rule has been included in the condition of all return ticket types, most surprisingly including Off Peak Day tickets. This is, I believe, an example of rules becoming more restrictive at Simplification. Overall, Simplification was bad for customers as it let the TOCs change conditions to our detriment (but I've discussed Simplification extensively before so I won't go into it further now) and the people who asked for it really should be quite embarrased now. It was obvious that it was going to be a sham, and I've said so all along.

Was it deliberate that when Simplification occured, the requirement to hold a return portion when using an outward was made to apply to all ticket types? Or was it only meant to apply to SORs and someone accidentally applied it to them all? I don't know. We'll probably never know! Should ATOC have the power to make sweeping changes like that? Are ATOC acting in a regulatory capacity? If so, should they? Hmm...

 

[wintonian]

Certainly if the OUT part is valid over a number of days then you should expect to asked.

However as has been pointed out in this thread you could quite legitimately not have the OUT part as it may have been confiscated/ swallowed by the TOC.

Also in the part of the NCOC that I have quoted in #18 dosn't seem to say anything about retaining one part when using another, or have I missed it elsewhere?

 

[yorkie]

Certainly if the OUT part is valid over a number of days then you should expect to asked.

... to show the return portion, when using the outward after the first day of validity? Yes, I'd expect to be asked, I totally agree, and that is reasonable.

However as has been pointed out in this thread you could quite legitimately not have the OUT part as it may have been confiscated/ swallowed by the TOC.

It doesn't apply when using the return portion at all. There is no requirement to hold an outward ticket when using a return ticket.

Even if you got a return ticket for the opposite direction to which you were taking, and used the return portion only, and even if you throw away the outward before travel, I see that as being perfectly valid. It only becomes invalid if you do your return journey using your outward ticket.

There is nothing wrong with using the first train of the day using a return portion of a day ticket that cannot have been used to get there, and no requirement to be in posession of the outward.

It is only on the outward portion that there is a requirement to be in posession of an unused return portion.

Also in the part of the NCOC that I have quoted in #18 dosn't seem to say anything about retaining one part when using another, or have I missed it elsewhere?

The relevant condition is in the ticket conditions, for example here. Next time I book a ticket I will look to see if I can see whether this is made clear when booking...

 

[142094]

Was there a time when a return ticket could be printed on just one ticket, and not two seperate OUT and RTN tickets? I seem to remember wehn I was younger getting a return only on one ticket from a PORTIS machine on board a local train.