Advance Tickets - Nonsensical restrictions should be removed

[zero]

Talking about Germany, as long as your ticket is valid at the time(s) and place(s) you are inspected, nobody cares if you stop or start short even on fixed-train tickets. So it is possible to have a system which "makes sense" in relation to what the OP did here.

 

[Skymonster]

I sometimes go to a local supermarket to buy lunch. I usually fill a medium salad bowl at the salad bar which costs £2.99 alone, and pick a drink worth £1.75. Total £4.74. However, both these items qualify for the meal deal that is £4.00 total, but to get that meal deal I have to take a “snack” too, although I rarely want any of the snacks on offer. If I walked out with just the salad and the drink and paid only £4.00, I’d risk being accused of shoplifting having not paid the correct price for the goods I had taken. If I pick up a snack, bringing the notional total to well over £5 (sometimes even £6), I can legitimately pay only £4.00 even though I don’t want the snack and could even throw it in the bin as soon as I leave the shop. Most people appreciate [and accept, maybe grudgingly] that a supermarket meal deal involves picking three items, one from each category, in order to get the deal - and if they don’t go for all three they have to pay for the individual items even if just two exceed the price of the deal. In other words they play by the supermarket’s rules and maybe sometimes acquire something they don’t really want or need.

What baffles me is that many people accept that a supermarket has a right to set pricing rules, but they would probably be the first to complain about the railway’s rules for advance tickets, which clearly state that the entire journey must be taken without stopping/starting short, on the correct train, with no breaks. Moral of story: if you want the deal, stick to the rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can, however, throw the snack in the bin, the equivalent of ending your Advance journey early. Or eat only half of the sandwich.

That actually agrees with the argument that Advances should allow partial journeys.

 

[fandroid]

Deleted

 

[AlterEgo]

I sometimes go to a local supermarket to buy lunch. I usually fill a medium salad bowl at the salad bar which costs £2.99 alone, and pick a drink worth £1.75. Total £4.74. However, both these items qualify for the meal deal that is £4.00 total, but to get that meal deal I have to take a “snack” too, although I rarely want any of the snacks on offer. If I walked out with just the salad and the drink and paid only £4.00, I’d risk being accused of shoplifting having not paid the correct price for the goods I had taken. If I pick up a snack, bringing the notional total to well over £5 (sometimes even £6), I can legitimately pay only £4.00 even though I don’t want the snack and could even throw it in the bin as soon as I leave the shop. Most people appreciate [and accept, maybe grudgingly] that a supermarket meal deal involves picking three items, one from each category, in order to get the deal - and if they don’t go for all three they have to pay for the individual items even if just two exceed the price of the deal. In other words they play by the supermarket’s rules and maybe sometimes acquire something they don’t really want or need.

What baffles me is that many people accept that a supermarket has a right to set pricing rules, but they would probably be the first to complain about the railway’s rules for advance tickets, which clearly state that the entire journey must be taken without stopping/starting short, on the correct train, with no breaks. Moral of story: if you want the deal, stick to the rules.

The difference between then analogies is that you aren't forced to consume, or do anything with, the excess goods. In the railway's example, disposing of the meal deal bottle of Coke in the bin, even if you subsequently buy an expensive orange juice not in the meal deal from the same supermarket, is breaking the terms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference between then analogies is that you aren't forced to consume, or do anything with, the excess goods. In the railway's example, disposing of the meal deal bottle of Coke in the bin, even if you subsequently buy an expensive orange juice not in the meal deal from the same supermarket, is breaking the terms.

Yep. The supermarket analogy is a bit more like it costing less to buy Euston-Lancaster than Euston-Preston, but you're (unlike on the railway) at liberty to consume only Euston-Preston and throw Preston-Lancaster in the bin if you wish.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2023 ==

You know full well that the fix for that would penalise the good people of Lancaster and further north who would see a massive increase in fares such that it was ok to join at Preston. Can I ask, how would you react if some simplification resulted in fares you use from Milton Keynes to Euston being increased by 30% or more?

Nobody likes a fare increase, but I personally have a very strong sense of fairness and am willing to concede things that are not necessarily to my benefit for an overall fairer system. The Preston vs. Lancaster situation (and similar) isn't fair. Nor is charging 10p less for a single than a return, which is one reason I'm so strongly in favour of single fare pricing.

 

[railfan99]

This may be true but doesn't really deal with the OP's complaint, which is that it is nonsensical that you can't consume less than you purchased. Indeed, it's industry policy to allow starting/ending short on Advances where not deliberately done to avoid a higher fare.

That the ticket might "die" if you stop off is logical (as you can't reboard the booked train), but that you can't just start/end short is beyond stupid. All tickets should permit break of journey; the question should simply be whether they permit it to be resumed or not. Which is how BR saw it "way back when" - break of journey restrictions e.g. on the outward part of a Saver simply meant if you stopped you couldn't restart.

There's an equivalent for air tickets. If we buy a ticket from A to C via B - let's say Glasgow to London Heathrow to Singapore - but suddenly decide to travel by train or drive from Glasgow to London Heathrow and we want to check in and commence the air trip at LHR, all 'coupons' (as some in the travel industry still call each journey portion) will be invalidated.

Nonsensical, although the difference with rail is sometimes a ticket from B to C can be more expensive than A to C via B, as airlines price according to demand from each airport and not necessaily just on distance. But one is saving the airline money by it not having to transport you and your luggage from A to B.

I agree on rail every ticket ought permit break of journey, because your DfT and rail operators ought realise UK rail competes with the private car (and to a lesser extent, road coaches and occasionally air).

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's an equivalent for air tickets. If we buy a ticket from A to C via B - let's say Glasgow to London Heathrow to Singapore - but suddenly decide to travel by train or drive from Glasgow to London Heathrow and we want to check in and commence the air trip at LHR, all 'coupons' (as some in the travel industry still call each journey portion) will be invalidated.

Yes, and it's unreasonable there too. Even worse is the practice of invaliding the return if you miss your outward. Fortunately low-cost airlines have abandoned this practice.

It was ostensibly for similar reasons to the railway, i.e. a desire to charge less for longer trips if the market fitted that.

 

[Flying Snail]

Yes, and it's unreasonable there too. Even worse is the practice of invaliding the return if you miss your outward. Fortunately low-cost airlines have abandoned this practice.

It was ostensibly for similar reasons to the railway, i.e. a desire to charge less for longer trips if the market fitted that.

Banning that practice wouldn't lower the prices for the B-C leg, it would just increase the multi-leg ticket to the price of A-B + B-C and as those discounted tickets are only offered for marginal or time uncompetitive journeys it would just kill off those links altogether.

The big difference with the railways is that they also offer the flexible ticket option for a relatively small increase in price over the restrictive Advance.

My main issue is that rail passengers are increasingly being pushed towards Advance fares for more and more journeys, especially where they do not give a significant discount. They know full well that a high % of people will just buy the cheapest fare offered so more and more Advances are being sold.

 

[londonbridge]

I sometimes go to a local supermarket to buy lunch. I usually fill a medium salad bowl at the salad bar which costs £2.99 alone, and pick a drink worth £1.75. Total £4.74. However, both these items qualify for the meal deal that is £4.00 total, but to get that meal deal I have to take a “snack” too, although I rarely want any of the snacks on offer. If I walked out with just the salad and the drink and paid only £4.00, I’d risk being accused of shoplifting having not paid the correct price for the goods I had taken. If I pick up a snack, bringing the notional total to well over £5 (sometimes even £6), I can legitimately pay only £4.00 even though I don’t want the snack and could even throw it in the bin as soon as I leave the shop. Most people appreciate [and accept, maybe grudgingly] that a supermarket meal deal involves picking three items, one from each category, in order to get the deal - and if they don’t go for all three they have to pay for the individual items even if just two exceed the price of the deal. In other words they play by the supermarket’s rules and maybe sometimes acquire something they don’t really want or need.

What baffles me is that many people accept that a supermarket has a right to set pricing rules, but they would probably be the first to complain about the railway’s rules for advance tickets, which clearly state that the entire journey must be taken without stopping/starting short, on the correct train, with no breaks. Moral of story: if you want the deal, stick to the rules.

I once had a customer with the meal deal items, the sandwich was dated for that day and had been reduced. I rang them up and asked for the total.

“That says meal deal”
“Yes sir”
“The sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, it’s still £x.xx
“But the sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, but the total for all three is still more than £x.xx, so you’ve still got the deal”
(Speaking slowly and with a pause between each word) “But…..the….sandwich…..is…..REDUCED”.

The more I tried to explain that, even taking the reduced sandwich price into account, he was still getting the meal deal, the more he argued. Eventually he said “Well I don’t want it then” and walked out…..

 

[Krokodil]

Nobody likes a fare increase, but I personally have a very strong sense of fairness and am willing to concede things that are not necessarily to my benefit for an overall fairer system. The Preston vs. Lancaster situation (and similar) isn't fair. Nor is charging 10p less for a single than a return, which is one reason I'm so strongly in favour of single fare pricing.

I agree. The answer to such unfairness though should be loosening the restrictions at the rip-off stations, not restricting the Lancaster passengers. Or just abolish restrictions entirely. I won't hold my breath.

I actually agree with you that Advances are more trouble than they're worth. We have both some of the steepest fares in Europe, but also some of the cheapest. I suppose that it's too much to ask them to meet in the middle.

 

[yorkie]

I agree. The answer to such unfairness though should be loosening the restrictions at the rip-off stations, not restricting the Lancaster passengers. Or just abolish restrictions entirely. I won't hold my breath.

I actually agree with you that Advances are more trouble than they're worth. We have both some of the steepest fares in Europe, but also some of the cheapest. I suppose that it's too much to ask them to meet in the middle.

If anyone wants to propose what they should be, feel free to create a thread. But I don't think anyone would be able to come up with a proposal that is acceptable to all parties!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I once had a customer with the meal deal items, the sandwich was dated for that day and had been reduced. I rang them up and asked for the total.

“That says meal deal”
“Yes sir”
“The sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, it’s still £x.xx
“But the sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, but the total for all three is still more than £x.xx, so you’ve still got the deal”
(Speaking slowly and with a pause between each word) “But…..the….sandwich…..is…..REDUCED”.

The more I tried to explain that, even taking the reduced sandwich price into account, he was still getting the meal deal, the more he argued. Eventually he said “Well I don’t want it then” and walked out…..

By contrast shops are not always that sensible in offering the lower of the two discounts. I remember years ago going into the Greggs outlet in Rusholme. Ten of something (pasties I think) was let's say £5, but they were £1 each. There were only 8 left. Logic would be to give 8 and charge the £5, but they insisted they wanted £8. I told them to get lost for being so ridiculous, so they probably went in the bin instead.

But in your example (I had to read it a few times to understand the situation) it probably would make sense to discount the meal deal where sandwiches are reduced to clear, if only by say 10p. I can understand the customer's exasperation.

 

[James H]

Getting very OT but a saw an example in Sainsbury's the other day where an item had been marked down with a yellow sticker - but only to the 'Nectar price' for the item. So only customers without a Nectar card were making any saving.

 

[zero]

I once had a customer with the meal deal items, the sandwich was dated for that day and had been reduced. I rang them up and asked for the total.

“That says meal deal”
“Yes sir”
“The sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, it’s still £x.xx
“But the sandwich is reduced”
“Yes sir, but the total for all three is still more than £x.xx, so you’ve still got the deal”
(Speaking slowly and with a pause between each word) “But…..the….sandwich…..is…..REDUCED”.

The more I tried to explain that, even taking the reduced sandwich price into account, he was still getting the meal deal, the more he argued. Eventually he said “Well I don’t want it then” and walked out…..

The meal deal price should have been reduced by the amount of the reduction of the sandwich, as otherwise he got no benefit from helping you shift stock that was soon to become unsellable.

It used to work like that in waitrose - e.g. normal price £2 for one and £3 for two, was coded to take £1 off per multiple of two purchased.

If they were yellow stickered to £1 you still got the £1 off so 50p each. I recall once they paid me to take away some yellow sticker items.

This was in 2009 as it was when I lived next to a waitrose, later that year they fixed it to work the way you say.



Another time (numbers are examples) I bought 3 pairs of trainers for £50 each and there was an offer of £20 off when spending £80. On returning one, I expected to get £50 back because I would still have spent over £80, however they insisted on splitting the £20 discount and only refunded £43.33. Therefore I returned the other two, separately which cost them 3 courier fees, and reordered the two I wanted with the full offer.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Go somewhere like Italy or Germany.

InterCity trains, for long distance journeys, are compulsory reservation and demand-priced.

Intercity trains in Germany are NOT compulsory reservation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Intercity trains in Germany are NOT compulsory reservation.

As I already replied, that was a typo, it should have said and/or but I just typed and.

As noted above, the system DB use is presently similar to LNER and Avanti, i.e. "fake compulsory reservations" whereby the train can "sell out" but a Flexpreis ticket can be used on any other service that day regardless of whether it may claim to be Ausverkauft or not.

This however does not detract from my point that all across Europe, the system is different between regional and IC trains, and regional trains typically charge fixed-price fares, while on IC trains there tend to be demand-based prices even if there's a fixed flexible cap.

 

[Cowley]

Getting very OT but a saw an example in Sainsbury's the other day where an item had been marked down with a yellow sticker - but only to the 'Nectar price' for the item. So only customers without a Nectar card were making any saving.

Yes I think this might indeed be getting a little off topic…

 

[island]

Please, exactly why does ending a journey "short" (in the parlance being used) and then starting the return journey "short" and paying twice for the bit that was shorted somehow cost the rail company money and so "justify" the so-called cheaper ticket? This is bonkers and I for one want no part of this madness. Back to the car for me for all journeys where my concessionary pass does not remove me from this tyranny. Those folk on this forum who are defending such nonsense need to look in the mirror. Bizarre.

Whether it costs the railway more money is neither here nor there. It is a question of market segmentation. If passengers for a further destination can only be attracted to the train by giving a lower fare than to a nearer destination, that fare has to then come with the restriction that it's only valid from and to the exact stations chosen, otherwise it will undercut the nearer destination. The result of permitting all journeys to be ended short will not, I can assure you, be that everyone pays the lower price. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[londonbridge]

@zero i will DM you with my reply to avoid dragging the thread off topic.

 

[Topological]

Whether it costs the railway more money is neither here nor there. It is a question of market segmentation. If passengers for a further destination can only be attracted to the train by giving a lower fare than to a nearer destination, that fare has to then come with the restriction that it's only valid from and to the exact stations chosen, otherwise it will undercut the nearer destination. The result of permitting all journeys to be ended short will not, I can assure you, be that everyone pays the lower price. Be careful what you wish for.

There are all sorts of things here.

For the example take a line running A->B->C

Quotas may be that there are no advances from A->B meaning the best deal available is A->C. Now if a passenger travelling from A->B buys the A->C ticket then they are reducing the railway opportunity to use the advance A->C fare to attract passengers. This is the airline example others have posted upthread.

Passenger demand might also be high A->B and B->C but the sale of an A->C ticket reduces the places for the railway to sell to both A->B and B->C with potential impacts on revenue.

Finally, there is the case that the seat appears reserved B->C and that passengers boarding at B may not sit in that seat when the see the "red light"

Note that these situtations may/may not apply to Liverpool->Poulton->Blackpool.

However, one thing that is true with all of them is that it just means the railway needs to think a bit harder about how they target markets.

For me, regular travellers who rightly expect to be able to start short / end early, with the only penalty being the loss of the validity between the stations not used, is the logical position. That is where we should be and the hypotheticals above need dealing with in cleverer ways.

 

[island]

For me, regular travellers who rightly expect to be able to start short / end early, with the only penalty being the loss of the validity between the stations not used, is the logical position.

I do not agree it is logical. The advance ticket terms and conditions section 6 are abundantly clear: “You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do not agree it is logical. The advance ticket terms and conditions section 6 are abundantly clear: “You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.”

Realistically, how many people read T&C?

 

[Wolfie]

Getting very OT but a saw an example in Sainsbury's the other day where an item had been marked down with a yellow sticker - but only to the 'Nectar price' for the item. So only customers without a Nectar card were making any saving.

Have seen examples in Tesco where the marked down price was higher than a Clubcard offer. Think that they discount by a fixed percentage off the full price (so twofer type deals are excluded too).

 

[Haywain]

Realistically, how many people read T&C?

About as many as buy Advance tickets expecting that they can only make part of the journey.

 

[Mainline421]

Go somewhere like Italy or Germany.

InterCity trains, for long distance journeys, are compulsory reservation and demand-priced.
Regional trains, for short and medium distance journeys, are near-entirely walk-up with one set of fixed fares.

You've clearly never been to Germany, it's a fully walk up railway, with no compulsory reservations and UK style ticketing.

Even Italy has capped flexible fares with the option to hop on any other train for a €10 supplement payable on board.

Sorry, should have said and/or.

What DB are presently doing, interestingly, is exactly what LNER and Avanti are doing, i.e. "fake compulsory reservations", that is trains can sell out but you can just buy a ticket for a different one. I have a feeling that's also true of Poland bar the IEP (Pendolino).

Not really, on DB even with an advance you won't get a reservation unless you pay extra. If you use a TVM or ticket office you don't need to select an itinerary at all, and you have a Bahncard 100 you don't even need a ticket. Germany is about the worst example for your point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

About as many as buy Advance tickets expecting that they can only make part of the journey.

Nonsense. Most people would expect they could use less than they paid for, while almost nobody reads T&C on anything.

The answer you give is applicable only to a demographic like those of this Forum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

You've clearly never been to Germany, it's a fully walk up railway, with no compulsory reservations and UK style ticketing.

I've lived there. Your move.

Even Italy has capped flexible fares with the option to hop on any other train for a €10 supplement payable on board.

Not really, on DB even with an advance you won't get a reservation unless you pay extra. If you use a TVM or ticket office you don't need to select an itinerary at all, and you have a Bahncard 100 you don't even need a ticket. Germany is about the worst example for your point.

Seat reservations are optional even on a Sparpreis, but there IS quota control on the sale of Flexpreis for a given selected train (but you can use it on any that day). It's a different mechanism but mostly works the same as LNER etc. Like LNER's policy it was a COVID thing that stuck. It's done to set realistic expectations so people don't think they are going to be able to board severely overcrowded trains.

However, with Flexpreis being expensive (it's about Off Peak level on three tier TOCs in the UK), like here there has been a big shift to the use of Sparpreis, which is very similar to our Advances.

But this is all a bit moot. The point remains that on regional trains there are no Advance a likes, simply one fixed fare and some regional offers which are not quota controlled. Quota controlled tickets are only on long distance services, and so they should be here too.

 

[Mainline421]

Seat reservations are optional even on a Sparpreis, but there IS quota control on the sale of Flexpreis for a given selected train (but you can use it on any that day). It's a different mechanism but mostly works the same as LNER etc. Like LNER's policy it was a COVID thing that stuck. It's done to set realistic expectations so people don't think they are going to be able to board severely overcrowded trains.

However, with Flexpreis being expensive (it's about Off Peak level on three tier TOCs in the UK), like here there has been a big shift to the use of Sparpreis, which is very similar to our Advances.

But this is all a bit moot. The point remains that on regional trains there are no Advance a likes, simply one fixed fare and some regional offers which are not quota controlled. Quota controlled tickets are only on long distance services, and so they should be here too.

Again flexpreis aren't linked to any specific train, that's just a way of searching for them. There is an unlimited number available without selecting any train (and unlike LNER you don't even have to queue at the ticket office).

But yes I agree, advance-style fares don't really work well for regional trains.

 

[Haywain]

Most people would expect they could use less than they paid for,

I disagree - it's not what people are used to these days.

 

[Topological]

Realistically, how many people read T&C?

Indeed. T&C should be defensible and logical. The point about fixed train only is about the only T&C that should matter with advance. The whole thing about if the train is cancelled you need to use the same operator unless 61+ minutes late at the destination is also daft (but that is not this thread)

I would not be sure, but I suspect a reasonable success rate challenging T&Cs that do not actually appear logical such as the under consumption one in a non-railway setting.

About as many as buy Advance tickets expecting that they can only make part of the journey.

I strongly doubt that. Bletchleyite has addressed my thoguhts for that:

Nonsense. Most people would expect they could use less than they paid for, while almost nobody reads T&C on anything.

The answer you give is applicable only to a demographic like those of this Forum.

Whilst there are no doubt railway reasons for many things, there are too many times when the railway assumes everyone researches everything. The reality is a long way from that.

It is true I should go through all the T&Cs Apple or Microsoft put out but... There is definitely a good South Park episode on that one from a long time ago.

I wish the railway would sort itself out, but I do not hold much hope.