One passenger travelling on Two-Together discounted ticket

[py_megapixel]

It's a pity you don't see protecting other people's health as logical.

It's a pity the railway doesn't see allowing that as logical!

 

[Haywain]

That's an answer that demonstrates knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. It wouldn't have hurt to allow that for the relatively small number of people who would do it and avoid all this loss of goodwill.

No, it's an answer that demonstrates that there could be a cost involved. I'm not convinced either way that the policy is right.

GroupSave groups are not meant to change in size (up or down) after the start of the journey so I suspect also not allowed.

It's not allowed but it is a fairly similar, albeit much more common, situation.

 

[Graham H]

What's the fairly similar situation with validity of Groupsave tickets if the group size falls below the minimum 3?

I have travelled on a group save of 4. Busy train and our seats were fairly far apart. Guard checked two of us but didnt query the groupsave. at the other end of the coach the other two in the group were also checked, no question. However I know you should travel together and I am sure would be liable for a penalty if travelling on separate trains.
However groupsave is also available for a travel card and I am pretty sure underground and probably buses would never flag up a message for a manual check to be made that all 3 or 4 were present.

 

[pdq]

Really? Two people travel on the outward and only one on the return - that would be two undiscounted tickets, so there would be a saving to be made by allowing travel by only one person with the railcard and two return tickets.

That feels like a pretty unusual use case and one that is likely to occur mainly as the result of illness or other mishap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That feels like a pretty unusual use case and one that is likely to occur mainly as the result of illness or other mishap.

Agreed. I think the number of use-cases are small, and thus by not allowing it the railway is just creating bad-will, something it really is expert at doing through gross pettiness with regard to fares.

 

[Haywain]

Agreed. I think the number of use-cases are small, and thus by not allowing it the railway is just creating bad-will, something it really is expert at doing through gross pettiness with regard to fares.

I think that not allowing can allow discretion to be shown, while allowing it opens up the challenges I raised previously.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that not allowing can allow discretion to be shown, while allowing it opens up the challenges I raised previously.

Discretion doesn't really work any more. It did when the guard was the only person who could get in the way, but now a guard might give permission then an RPI report for prosecution.

If you're going to use the strict level of enforcement the railway now uses, the only way is 100% adherence to the rules, but that requires the rules to be reasonable.

I remain of the view that the number of "wilful" use cases for this are low, and as such the railway is chasing pennies at the expense of goodwill.

 

[pdq]

I think that not allowing can allow discretion to be shown, while allowing it opens up the challenges I raised previously.

The trouble with relying on discretion is that it can just as easily be shown as not; and in the OP's case - which I think is typical of this situation - there can be a degree of worry about another human, which does not want to be exacerbated by concerns about whether your RPI, conductor, guard, whatever, is in a discretionary mood.

 

[Haywain]

The trouble with relying on discretion is that it can just as easily be shown as not; and in the OP's case - which I think is typical of this situation - there can be a degree of worry about another human, which does not want to be exacerbated by concerns about whether your RPI, conductor, guard, whatever, is in a discretionary mood.

Well, that's why it's called discretion. The fact is that we are an online forum community and can't offer that, and have no way of knowing whether GWR would advise differently if they were asked directly by the OP.

 

[py_megapixel]

The trouble with relying on discretion is that it can just as easily be shown as not; and in the OP's case - which I think is typical of this situation - there can be a degree of worry about another human, which does not want to be exacerbated by concerns about whether your RPI, conductor, guard, whatever, is in a discretionary mood.

Furthermore, this is exacerbated on a long journey such as the one OP describes, where you might encounter a guard who says you are fine to travel, but that isn't communicated to anyone and so the barrier staff at Paddington slap you with an enormous penalty fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Furthermore, this is exacerbated on a long journey such as the one OP describes, where you might encounter a guard who says you are fine to travel, but that isn't communicated to anyone and so the barrier staff at Paddington slap you with an enormous penalty fare.

Or even a court summons.

In the days of open stations and the punishment for not having a ticket being just being sold one, it worked. Now, it doesn't. Discretion can't work any more because of the consequences.

 

[Haywain]

Discretion can't work any more because of the consequences.

I don't agree with that - it can be granted and confirmed in writing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't agree with that - it can be granted and confirmed in writing.

I suppose. But it's better just to have reasonable rules. Almost every case of one person travelling when two were booked is going to be related to something bad happening, e.g. illness as here. There are very few "wilful" use cases for it.

 

[philthetube]

Really? Two people travel on the outward and only one on the return - that would be two undiscounted tickets, so there would be a saving to be made by allowing travel by only one person with the railcard and two return tickets.

The occasions when this would occur are tiny, excluding genuine reasons such as the op's circumstances. And if someone does this then so what?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The occasions when this would occur are tiny, excluding genuine reasons such as the op's circumstances. And if someone does this then so what?

So the railway loses out on income it should have had. And while any single uncollected fare is negligible, eventually they add up.

Thinking a little further on what would happen if both holders of a Two Together card didn’t have to travel, it’s not quite as simple as removing the ‘both must travel’ rule: a new rule that if a refund is claimed it must be for both tickets would be needed - otherwise I can foresee a new loophole whereby using my 2T railcard I buy two tickets for four thirds of the price of one ticket, then refund one of them because my partner ‘doesn’t want to travel’ - so I have one ticket at two thirds price: absent a rule requiring both tickets to be refunded or neither, I’ve just created a railcard for any single person who is prepared to jump through enough hoops.

 

[philthetube]

If two people decide to travel London to Glasgow and one flies back they save a few quid, possibly, if they do it every week then there is an issue, but who would.

the railway creates a opportunity for bad publicity for no reason.

as an individual ticket is has no value as it is not valid without it's partner, no refund is due,

 

[py_megapixel]

So the railway loses out on income it should have had. And while any single uncollected fare is negligible, eventually they add up.

How would it lose out on income it should have had if one person travels on two discounted tickets (so their journey costs 4/3 of full price) and the other person subsequently buys a new ticket at full price to get home? The total paid for both people's journey is 7/3 of full price, while if the event necessitating separate travel had never happened, they would only have received 4/3 of it, so that's more revenue than they would have had originally.

If the original tickets were Advance then the difference might well be even larger

a new rule that if a refund is claimed it must be for both tickets would be needed - otherwise I can foresee a new loophole whereby using my 2T railcard I buy two tickets for four thirds of the price of one ticket, then refund one of them because my partner ‘doesn’t want to travel’ - so I have one ticket at two thirds price: absent a rule requiring both tickets to be refunded or neither, I’ve just created a railcard for any single person who is prepared to jump through enough hoops.

Adding that rule would make sense anyway, as one two together discounted ticket is basically useless and nobody really benefits from the fact that one can exist

 

[robbeech]

Though the OP and his friend would need to square that with their morals as to whether travelling by public transport while knowingly being infected is the right thing to do. I think the choice they are making is the right one, personally.

But we did a study funded by the railway (aka the tax payer) that clearly stated you couldn’t catch it on a train. Please travel by train.

Really? Two people travel on the outward and only one on the return - that would be two undiscounted tickets, so there would be a saving to be made by allowing travel by only one person with the railcard and two return tickets.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Two people have paid 4/3 of the price of 1 person. If 1 person travels it’s 4/3 of the price of 1 person whichever way you look at it. If me and my wife use our card to have a couple of days in Liverpool it costs us about £60, if we didn’t have the discount it would cost us about £30, because we would go in the car.

Discretion doesn't really work any more. It did when the guard was the only person who could get in the way, but now a guard might give permission then an RPI report for prosecution.

Which is against the rules, but, the railway.

I don't agree with that - it can be granted and confirmed in writing.

But the likelihood of discretion is directly affected by several factors, one of them is the attitude test on the day, and another is the amount of effort a guard has to put in to allow the passenger to do something they’re not normally allowed to do. It’s easy to say “yeah ok, it’s not technically allowed but I understand your circumstances, get on” but if suddenly you have to write something down or print something from your ticket machine that you won’t have on you whilst you’re stood at the door waiting to dispatch the train it suddenly becomes much less likely to happen.

a new rule that if a refund is claimed it must be for both tickets would be needed

Then make one. It’s remarkably easy to make new rules up, the railway does it all the time, sometimes officially.

*Prohibit refunds for 1 passenger of a pair.

*Allow an excess (at full price, not individual legs) to 2 undiscounted tickets if the passengers need to travel separately.

*Allow one passenger to travel with both tickets and the railcard.

 

[kristiang85]

So the railway loses out on income it should have had. And while any single uncollected fare is negligible, eventually they add up.

But if people don't want to risk one not being able to travel due to COVID or any other reason, they could well just use a car rather than the railway so the railway loses out even more. Certainly I can imagine the OP and their friend not wanting the aggro in the future, and anybody penalised for a similar situation will certainly think twice about booking the railway for such a trip again. It must be fairly common.

I think if a traveller presents both tickets but one isn't there, that should be valid, as there are incredibly few situations where this saves money for one person.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the railway loses out on income it should have had.

Shouldn't have introduced it at all, then.

This attitude makes my mind boggle. I have never known such a customer-unfriendly organisation. It's even worse than Ryanair in many ways, who are the benchmark for how not to do it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2022 ==

*Allow one passenger to travel with both tickets and the railcard.

This is the easy one, and will mean more income in some cases than if they refund and reissue (depends on the fare), but also avoid rendering Advances useless.

 

[py_megapixel]

This attitude makes my mind boggle. I have never known such a customer-unfriendly organisation. It's even worse than Ryanair in many ways, who are the benchmark for how not to do it.

I tend to give Ryanair a bit of a free pass because it is providing an ultra-low-cost service, and as such almost everyone who books with them knows and accepts what they're getting themself into. The railway isn't providing an ultra-low-cost service.

(Or rather, it is providing an ultra-low-cost service but charging the customer as if it wasn't!)