Oyster Travelcard + Paper Ticket

[dan_atki]

What's confusing me (and I'm sure there's a concept I'm not getting the hang of) is that if you've done this to come to the conclusion that the three tickets cover a journey from Zone 1 to Reading with no gaps... what's wrong with this:

Z12 TC + BZ2 to Richmond CDR covers a journey from Zone 1 (e.g. PAD) to Richmond.
Richmond to Reading CDR covers a journey from Richmond to Reading.

Therefore the three tickets together cover a journey from Zone 1 to Reading with no gaps.

I've been told this isn't valid on a HST from Paddington to Reading as, even though the tickets are any permitted route and s19(c) applies, the train would have to call at Richmond.

So why in the original example doesn't the train have to call at Slough for the same reason that the Richmond tickets aren't valid?

Hope this makes sense... thanks!

For the reason I explained before as MikeWh has hit on the head too - the tickets have to be valid for the journey being undertaken as per the Routeing Guide. Richmond to Reading has NO permitted routes from Boundary Zone 2 to Reading along the Great Western Mainline from Paddington to Reading.

Let's make things slightly simpler. Assume your HST from Paddington to Reading stops at every station between the two (yes, very 'High Speed' I know). Is it now obvious that:-
1) In conjunction with the Oyster Card season zones 1 and 2 travelcard that the Boundary Zone 2 to Slough is valid on this HST; and
2) That a Slough to Reading ticket could be used on this train (by itself, not in conjunction with any other ticket)?

If you have answered 'yes' to both 1) and 2), then think about why you have done so, specifically number 2).

3) Is it now obvious why a Richmond to Reading ticket would not be valid on this service, in conjunction with the Oyster season and a BZ2 - Richmond?

If not, then I ask at which point does the Richmond to Reading ticket become the one you are using to travel on - obviously you'd only be travelling on one ticket at a time.

Let's spice things up a bit now and say the train is fast from Paddington to Reading. The Conditions of Carriage allow us to combine tickets subject to some criteria being met. The 'cover the entire journey' part means there are no 'gaps' in your tickets - so you can't combine a Paddington to Acton Main Line and an Ealing Broadway to Reading ticket as you are not covered between Acton and Ealing.

The three tickets combined satisfy the criteria, as I've said above and hence the combination is valid on such a fast service.

If, then you have the question why 3) is so important as you have a combination to Reading, then I will simply reply that the combination you have to Reading, via Richmond, is along a different route - one where a Richmond to Reading ticket would be valid by itself in no combination (to makes things simpler, assume every train stops at every station on its route again now). Would you expect to be able to use a ticket via Slough?

 

[penaltyfines]

I think the difference is that one covers the route the train takes whereas the other doesn't. Condition 19 allows you to take a non-stop train providing that you have tickets valid for the duration of that journey. In the case of tickets via Richmond you haven't got tickets that cover the entire route of the HST.

Yep I understand the principle of why the tickts aren't valid via Richmond, it's not the route that the train takes.

I just can't see how the CoC relates to that principle. It just says the tickets need to be valid for the journey, not the route.

 

[dan_atki]

I just can't see how the CoC relates to that principle. It just says the tickets need to be valid for the journey, not the route.

Condition 13, specifically (a)(iii) .

Condition 19 cannot be read exclusively of the rest of the Conditions!

(Apologies also, I edited my post above to make the principle clearer).

 

[John @ home]

why in the original example doesn't the train have to call at Slough for the same reason that the Richmond tickets aren't valid?

It does not have to call at Slough due to Condition 19. It does need to pass through Slough to meet the requirement that, together, the tickets cover the whole of your journey.

 

[penaltyfines]

Now FGW say (I quote):

"Paragraph 19c states ".......does not include season tickets........issued on behalf of........a local authority" so Travelcards are not included."

What thread (and from what source) did we determine that TfL is not a PTE?

 

[RJ]

What thread (and from what source) did we determine that TfL is not a PTE?

TfL is not a PTE, that's a fact, not a matter for debate.

 

[OwlMan]

TfL is not a PTE, that's a fact, not a matter for debate.

But are its tickets considered to be issued on or behalf of a local authority?

Transport for London is a statutory body created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and is responsible to the GLA.

Is the GLA a local authority (like the remaining ffunctions of the former metropolital counties) or is it another type of Government?

Peter

 

[penaltyfines]

TfL is not a PTE, that's a fact, not a matter for debate.

But rather than them taking my word for it, what can I quote/refer them to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.pteg.net/Aboutpteg/PTEprofiles/Transport+for+London

That makes it look like they are a PTE! lol

 

[Deerfold]

But rather than them taking my word for it, what can I quote/refer them to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.pteg.net/Aboutpteg/PTEprofiles/Transport+for+London

That makes it look like they are a PTE! lol

I know it doesn't help you but wow that section is so out of date - I can't remember when they dropped the "Centro" name but it's quite a while ago.

 

[MikeWh]

But rather than them taking my word for it, what can I quote/refer them to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.pteg.net/Aboutpteg/PTEprofiles/Transport+for+London

That makes it look like they are a PTE! lol

This thread really is going round in circles. In post 28 yorkie refered us to a post where ATOC confirmed the split ticketing rules in relation to a Poppleton to London journey. A few posts later in that thread barrykas refered to parts of the retail manual which confirmed that TfL is not treated as a PTE.

 

[Wolfie]

But rather than them taking my word for it, what can I quote/refer them to?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.pteg.net/Aboutpteg/PTEprofiles/Transport+for+London

That makes it look like they are a PTE! lol

...and the home page makes it clear it is not!

http://www.pteg.net

"The six ....and TFL are associate members"!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
QUOTE=penaltyfines;503849]Now FGW say (I quote):

"Paragraph 19c states ".......does not include season tickets........issued on behalf of........a local authority" so Travelcards are not included."

What thread (and from what source) did we determine that TfL is not a PTE? [/QUOTE]


...and since when did "PTE" become the same as "local authority"????

 

[dan_atki]

...and since when did "PTE" become the same as "local authority"????

Well the stipulation of Condition 19 c) is a season is not a 'season' if it is on behalf of a PTE or local authority.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but not in the same way.

Take an example of a 1-6 annual travelcard + an annual season from Elstree and Borehamwood to St Albans. I think it was argued in the past (possibly even from TfL) that such a combination is not valid on a fast train from St Pancras to St Albans.

By this we can assume that both tickets are on behalf of a PTE/LA (and so neither of them are 'seasons'), or neither of them are on behalf of a PTE/LA (and so both of them are 'seasons'). Remember the condition states that one (and only one) ticket can be a 'season'.

Obviously, my money would be on the second option and so TfL is neither a PTE or LA. Saying that, some concrete evidence would be nice.

 

[Wolfie]

Well the stipulation of Condition 19 c) is a season is not a 'season' if it is on behalf of a PTE or local authority.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but not in the same way.

Take an example of a 1-6 annual travelcard + an annual season from Elstree and Borehamwood to St Albans. I think it was argued in the past (possibly even from TfL) that such a combination is not valid on a fast train from St Pancras to St Albans.

By this we can assume that both tickets are on behalf of a PTE/LA (and so neither of them are 'seasons'), or neither of them are on behalf of a PTE/LA (and so both of them are 'seasons'). Remember the condition states that one (and only one) ticket can be a 'season'.

Obviously, my money would be on the second option and so TfL is neither a PTE or LA. Saying that, some concrete evidence would be nice.

Oops, missed the "local authority" bit of 19c.

Worse still I am afraid, after some web-searching that I may be about to offer some folk some very bad news - TfL's website has the following document on it (see link), the bad news being the statement on page 2 that "TfL’s legal status is that of a local authority". I presume that tfl would not post a document on its won website that had misleadging statements over its own legal status......

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/0603-Moodys-Report-TFL.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some more googling:

It appears the legal status may have changed when Transport for London was formed and took over from London Regional Transport (created by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 - as part of the preparations for abolition of the GLC - and reporting directly to the Secretary of State for Transport) which was legally a "public body". As TfL was formed under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and reports to the Greater London Authority (by definition a local authority) it is de facto legally a local authority.......

 

[penaltyfines]

ouch!

 

[MikeWh]

Before you get too carried away, ATOC clearly do not treat TfL as either a PTE or LA. They are an associate member of the PTEs umbrella organisation which counts them out on that side. Whilst they have the status of a local authority in terms of financial controls and borrowing practices, they clearly are not a local authority in terms of maintaining schools, libraries, collecting refuse, etc etc.

 

[jon0844]

This sounds like something that needs clarifying once and for all.

Yes, TfL does not do all of the things a local authority does - but if that's what they're legally classed as, does Joe Public care when that then means it matches a condition on the NRCoC?

 

[Wolfie]

This sounds like something that needs clarifying once and for all.

Yes, TfL does not do all of the things a local authority does - but if that's what they're legally classed as, does Joe Public care when that then means it matches a condition on the NRCoC?

The bigger problem is that a TOC can potentially then use that fact to block what was, pre-2000, a valid journey (I bet that that particular clause of the NCoC was written prior to TfL coming into existence with its current status).

 

[Greenback]

Deleted