Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
14.1 indeed says tickets can be excluded from split ticketing. It doesn't say that they can have their own special rules about how they are used for split ticketing.
4.6 Clearly isn't an exclusion from split-ticketing - quite the reverse; by claming to control how they are used for split ticketing it's making it clear that they can be.
I suppose the argument would have to be that 14.1 is to be interpreted as "Some tickets specifically exclude their use in conjunction with some or all other tickets"
And maybe that it show someone with legal experience would read it, but to me it doesn't pass the plain English test.
Agreed. But the plain English test would be engaged with the MCard condition - which is extremely clear. I also think the plain English meaning of exclude reasonably includes "you can't use that ticket with this".
Your logic is predicated upon West Yorkshire being the most important entity. Frankly, when they are purporting to impose local restrictions upon a national rule l would find that absolutely farcical. Whatever Yorkshire egotism thinks....
In the case of a ticket that is being sold by West Yorkshire, I don't think that's an unreasonable starting point for interpretation of the specific instance - just as it's acceptable for TfL conditions to take precedence over NRCOT in certain circumstances (i.e. use of the TfL contactless scheme).
I happen to agree that such local overrides on national rules are a problem on a national network.
The focus on Section 14 rights due to the operation of 14.2 and 14.3 is blinding people to the plain english meaning of 14.1, which doesn't say anything about the number of tickets per journey, whether 1, 2 or 100. To repeat, the clause is very simple - "Some Tickets specifically exclude their use in conjunction with other Tickets. This will be made clear in the terms and conditions when buying such Tickets".
If a ticket's use is excluded from "conjunction with another ticket" it can only be one ticket in use for that journey. No competition interpretation of the phrase "specifically exclude their use in conjunction with other tickets" is possible. I'm afraid you're reading what you think it says, because you're reading across to the Mcard term itself. We can't do that though, we have to read one thing at a time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But the plain English test would be engaged with the MCard condition - which is extremely clear. I also think the plain English meaning of exclude reasonably includes "you can't use that ticket with this".
Firstly, I suggest you actually read the MCard Terms. Not just 4.6, but all of them. They are very clear about who/what MCard is, and 14.6 makes complete sense once this is acknowledged:
In other words, "MCard" is a retailer, and not the medium on which the ticket is held.
The condition applicable to the day ticket is no less clear than any other condition on tickets.
That leads to interpretation. I think this argument built out of the structure of Clause 14 of NRCOT is back to front. The condition of travel is engaged when buying the MCard ticket. That condition in clause 4.6 of the MCard T&Cs is explicitly that you need to buy the other half of a split from the last station in the West Yorkshire area that your train stops at. It doesn't talk to the wider rules of split ticketing because it doesn't need to - it defines a specific provision for how it may be used.
It is "MCard ticket" that isn't defined. As in, are WY DaySave tickets 'MCard tickets'? It isn't made clear. If, as you seem to think, MCard is a retailer, wouldn't it depend if you bought the ticket from them? The West Yorkshire Ticketing Company Ltd doesn't itself sell tickets, as far as I can make out, so your interpretation would appear to rule out the possibility of there being any such thing as an "MCard ticket". I'm sure the WYTCL would probably take the view that the DaySave products are MCard tickets regardless of medium, but whether it has actually succeeded in establishing that in its T&Cs is another question entirely.
I don't disagree. But if we're taking such a rigorous view of conditions, surely that requires that every purchaser, of every ticket, is expressly advised of every condition, every time they purchase them
A ridiculous straw man: 14.1 NRCoT expressly says this specific aspect of T&Cs (exclusion of splitting) will be made clear in T&Cs when you buy the ticket, where it applies. If it is not made clear, or it is only made clear at some other time (such as if you go and check) rather than when you buy the ticket, then the condition is not met.
- not just MCard 4.6, but anything that may be relevant. We're expected to be able, as responsible adults, check the conditions that apply to our purchases - and this information is straightforwardly available.
I'd rather that 14.1 wasn't there, and I'd rather that WYCTL didn't apply that condition. But I struggle to understand how there can be opposition as a matter of law, rather than as consumer and political (for those in the relevant area) protest.
Because they haven't written their conditions very well, and they don't necessarily succeed in meaning what you seem to think they mean. It isn't even clear if whoever drafted them was looking at a reasonably current version of the NRCoT, or if they were, whether they'd read any further than 14.2, or if they had, whether they had understood it. They may not even intend to restrict the use of WY Day Rangers for non-stop splits.
Has anyone done a non-stop split on a WY Day Ranger recently? I've done it a couple of times on LNER splitting at South Emsworth and the train manager has been absolutely fine about it both times.
I don't think that's what your quote means at all. The vast majority of the time the retailer is Northern Trains Limited / Trans Pennine Trains Limited for example.
In the case of a ticket that is being sold by West Yorkshire, I don't think that's an unreasonable starting point for interpretation of the specific instance - just as it's acceptable for TfL conditions to take precedence over NRCOT in certain circumstances (i.e. use of the TfL contactless scheme).
I happen to agree that such local overrides on national rules are a problem on a national network.
Those circumstances aren't similar. With CPAY you're interacting directly with Transport for London. They have third parties, true, who run the Crossrail and London Overground franchises but it's clear that the Oyster & Contactless conditions apply. They also explain in them how they interact with the NRCoT. The NRCoT don't limit the Oyster conditions either, and that's explicitly stated. Could it be better? Yes it could. Some stations with the newer welcome posters now give clearer information about who to contact with Contactless and Oyster enquiries, general conditions summaries and ways to request further information and common fares starting from the location of the welcome poster. This is a start. It could be better.
With the case you're replying to, the person has, by far the most likely, bought a ticket from Northern Trains Limited at a ticket office or from their train conductor and is travelling on one of their trains. There's no suggestion of third parties being involved during that process and the tickets explicitly state on them that the NRCoT applies. The third party conditions are unlikely to be mentioned at any point, nor would they be printed on the tickets. There's no reasonable way for the ticket office staff or train conductor to provide the MCard conditions, or even know they exist, given that they are unlikely to actually apply.
Those circumstances aren't similar. With CPAY you're interacting directly with Transport for London. They have third parties, true, who run the Crossrail and London Overground franchises but it's clear that the Oyster & Contactless conditions apply.
To whom is that clear? Us? Not, surely, the customer, who just finds himself at a station looking confused, until a member of staff or passer-by says "just tap in using a payment card, mate". That is the beginning and end of the alleged formation of a binding contract, in many cases.
They also explain in them how they interact with the NRCoT. The NRCoT don't limit the Oyster conditions either, and that's explicitly stated. Could it be better? Yes it could. Some stations with the newer welcome posters now give clearer information about who to contact with Contactless and Oyster enquiries, general conditions summaries and ways to request further information and common fares starting from the location of the welcome poster. This is a start. It could be better.
With the case you're replying to, the person has, by far the most likely, bought a ticket from Northern Trains Limited at a ticket office or from their train conductor and is travelling on one of their trains. There's no suggestion of third parties being involved during that process and the tickets explicitly state on them that the NRCoT applies. The third party conditions are unlikely to be mentioned at any point, nor would they be printed on the tickets. There's no reasonable way for the ticket office staff or train conductor to provide the MCard conditions, or even know they exist, given that they are unlikely to actually apply.
Since we're talking specifically about people doing non-stop splits across the West Yorkshire border (and I assume the alleged barring of this in the MCard T&Cs is supposed to apply in both directions of travel, even though the condition in question only talks about what you should do if you're leaving West Yorkshire?), it is hardly an edge case to consider people who have bought their WY Day Ranger from other TOCs' ticket offices, often well outside Metro's patch. They may be a small slice of those who buy the ticket, but a much larger slice of those who buy the ticket and perform a non-stop split. As you say, nobody tells them the ticket they're buying is an MCard ticket, let alone that it is subject to special T&Cs. Whenever I've bought mine, I've got the info from railrover.org or here and asked at the ticket office - there's no interaction with WY Metro whatsoever. There can't be, really, if you don't live in West Yorkshire and want to make a non-stop split that begins outside West Yorkshire.
Your logic is predicated upon West Yorkshire being the most important entity. Frankly, when they are purporting to impose local restrictions upon a national rule l would find that absolutely farcical. Whatever Yorkshire egotism thinks....
I was meaning more broadly that TfL, even when running National Rail services, operate as if 'we're going to pretend ours is a self-contained system and that the rules for everywhere else don't apply'.
Having said that, they have attempted to address some issues by having such products as Boundary Zone tickets, whereas Metro just put such matters in the 'too difficult for us to think about' box.
I was meaning more broadly that TfL, even when running National Rail services, operate as if 'we're going to pretend ours is a self-contained system and that the rules for everywhere else don't apply'.
So do Merseyrail, and people are largely OK with that because (broken 777s aside) it is quite a good service that most of the country would give their eye teeth for.
Having said that, they have attempted to address some issues by having such products as Boundary Zone tickets, whereas Metro just put such matters in the 'too difficult for us to think about' box.
I don't entirely see how they benefit from having that clause in - the extra ticket sales wouldn't benefit them because they aren't for intra-PTE journeys. I suppose it's just inertia - it's always been there so it stays there.
So do Merseyrail, and people are largely OK with that because (broken 777s aside) it is quite a good service that most of the country would give their eye teeth for.
I don't entirely see how they benefit from having that clause in - the extra ticket sales wouldn't benefit them because they aren't for intra-PTE journeys. I suppose it's just inertia - it's always been there so it stays there.
The only place I ever hear criticism of the insular attitude of Merseyrail or TfL is on this Forum (and maybe occasionally from enthusiasts on X). I have never heard of a "normal" passenger be in any way bothered by it. The only ones who might are Railcard holders but you just don't hear it. Even the Liverpool Echo, which loves a good front page article with big yellow Ms all over it, doesn't seem to care.
It's very hard to say that Oyster/contactless (which is the main reason for the insularity in fare terms, as far as TfL goes) doesn't benefit passengers. It's an excellent business "win win" - better service because you don't have to waste an undetermined amount of time buying a ticket, and cheaper for TfL because you don't need to maintain as many TVMs or booking offices.
It's very hard to say that Oyster/contactless (which is the main reason for the insularity in fare terms, as far as TfL goes) doesn't benefit passengers. It's an excellent business "win win" - better service because you don't have to waste an undetermined amount of time buying a ticket, and cheaper for TfL because you don't need to maintain as many TVMs or booking offices.
I was meaning more broadly that TfL, even when running National Rail services, operate as if 'we're going to pretend ours is a self-contained system and that the rules for everywhere else don't apply'.
Having said that, they have attempted to address some issues by having such products as Boundary Zone tickets, whereas Metro just put such matters in the 'too difficult for us to think about' box.
I was meaning more broadly that TfL, even when running National Rail services, operate as if 'we're going to pretend ours is a self-contained system and that the rules for everywhere else don't apply'.
Having said that, they have attempted to address some issues by having such products as Boundary Zone tickets, whereas Metro just put such matters in the 'too difficult for us to think about' box.
Nobody has done less than TfL, in recent times, to let people know about Boundary Zone tickets and encourage their use.
In fact, we had a report on this forum of a chap using a Travelcard season held on Oyster to go from Heathrow airport to an ungated NR station within his zones, and when he didn't tap out, TfL decided to seize some of the PAYG credit he had on his Oyster card. I seem to remember they dug in quite hard, insisting tapping out is mandatory even for Oyster Travelcard holders. That is extremely hostile, of course, to anyone wanting to use Boundary Zone tickets for non-stop splits across the Greater London boundary. As far as we know they only apply this dodgy practice to journeys starting or ending at Heathrow Airport, but it hardly illustrates your point.
I don't know what role, if any, TfL or London Transport may have played historically in the creation of Boundary Zone tickets, but in the 20 years I've lived in London they have been consistently hostile to break of journey, split ticketing and non-stop splits. They want to use price signals to force everyone to use Contactless PAYG, which makes non-stop splits impossible!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's very hard to say that Oyster/contactless (which is the main reason for the insularity in fare terms, as far as TfL goes) doesn't benefit passengers. It's an excellent business "win win" - better service because you don't have to waste an undetermined amount of time buying a ticket, and cheaper for TfL because you don't need to maintain as many TVMs or booking offices.
The fact people don't complain about it doesn't mean it benefits passengers.
In this country we are light-years behind international comparators in light-controlled pedestrian crossing design, so pedestrians have to wait ages before getting bored and risking their lives crossing before the lights change. Then after they've gone, the traffic is stopped by a red light and a green walk signal is shown to non-existent pedestrians. And nobody complains because it's Britain and we don't expect things to be well designed or to work properly. You cannot conclude from that that our way of doing things benefits road users (pedestrians, drivers or anyone else). It doesn't. There are off-the-peg designs that work efficiently and more safely than what we have that we could use. There are hundreds of such examples.
So it is with Contactless and its lack of Railcard discounts - which disadvantages not only the significant portion of the population who qualifies for an age or disability-based Railcard or tends to travel as a couple, but also Gold Card holders and, as the Contacless area expands, increasingly disadvantages everyone who is, or could be, a Network Railcard holder. So it disadvantages everybody. The fact people outside this forum are less likely to know this, and therefore less likely to complain about it, doesn't show that the system benefits them. They either don't know or don't see any point complaining, but most of the time they are not benefiting.
The LNER fare increase trial discussion is a good example of this. Most of us here specifically dislike the loss of flexibility. Most "normals" don't care, they book an Advance for a long distance journey and stick to it (LNER have even found that most 70 Minute Flex tickets are used on the booked train) - they just care if it's gone up in price or not. That people care less about that flexibility is demonstrated by how empty the unreserved coaches on 11 car Pendolinos often are these days, aside from the likes of Manchester-Stockport passengers.
The LNER fare increase trial discussion is a good example of this. Most of us here specifically dislike the loss of flexibility. Most "normals" don't care, they book an Advance for a long distance journey and stick to it (LNER have even found that most 70 Minute Flex tickets are used on the booked train) - they just care if it's gone up in price or not. That people care less about that flexibility is demonstrated by how empty the unreserved coaches on 11 car Pendolinos often are these days, aside from the likes of Manchester-Stockport passengers.
Maybe all my non-rail enthusiast friends are atypical, but none of them are happy with what the railway offers which is why they don't use it. If you look at rail's modal share, it suggests they're not untypical.
Maybe all my non-rail enthusiast friends are atypical, but none of them are happy with what the railway offers which is why they don't use it. If you look at rail's modal share, it suggests they're not untypical.
Maybe all my non-rail enthusiast friends are atypical, but none of them are happy with what the railway offers which is why they don't use it. If you look at rail's modal share, it suggests they're not untypical. I'd agree with that - but it's worth noting that the things non-enthusiasts...
100% this. Complaining in the UK is utterly pointless. I'm not interested in an apology or money back. I want to know what the business in question is going to do to make the experience less rubbish next time. Of course the answer is nearly always "nothing," even if they don't admit it.
The problem with Merseyrail is their insular attitude. They appear to be unaware that, for anyone arriving from outside Merseyside, their services are just a branch line at the end of a much longer journey.
The problem with Merseyrail is their insular attitude. They appear to be unaware that, for anyone arriving from outside Merseyside, their services are just a branch line at the end of a much longer journey.
And the fact people who don't realise that - because they don't take an interest in these matters - don't say it, doesn't mean they aren't inconvenienced by the behaviour that we know to be a manifestation of that insular attitude (e.g. mishandling delay repay claims by failing to consider the entire journey).
Regarding refunds of walk up tickets, a brief has just come out saying the 1st April is when the rule changes to no refunds after the day the ticket becomes valid, unless it's due to service disruption/cancellations stopping them completing their journey or for other exceptional circumstances.
Regarding refunds of walk up tickets, a brief has just come out saying the 1st April is when the rule changes to no refunds after the day the ticket becomes valid, unless it's due to service disruption/cancellations stopping them completing their journey or for other exceptional circumstances.
My understanding is: Tickets purchased from the 1st April 00:00:00.000000 are subject to the new rules. Tickets purchased up to and including 23:59:59.9999999 on the 31st March are unaffected.
Once the day of travel starts, refunds are no going longer to be available except for disruption. So if you have a ticket for say the 2nd of April, once the clock ticks past 2359 on the 1st of April the ticket will no longer be refundable, at all, in normal circumstances. All of the one click refund buttons from online retail channels are being removed.
My understanding is: Tickets purchased from the 1st April 00:00:00.000000 are subject to the new rules. Tickets purchased up to and including 23:59:59.9999999 on the 31st March are unaffected.
I didn't mean that. The wording posted suggested tickets may be refundable on the first day of validity, which wouldn't be much of an issue. Whereas my understanding was that they would be refundable only before they became valid.
Of course that means if you want to buy a ticket in advance, then you probably want an Advance if you might want to change your mind on the day of travel, because these would presumably remain changeable up to booked departure?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Even before the day of validity? That's highly disappointing. Why should one not be able to press it at 2359 on the day before validity?
This is a seriously customer unfriendly move particularly now single fare pricing is the way forward. Want to travel a day later on a walk up? You lose your money.
I didn't mean that. The wording posted suggested tickets may be refundable on the first day of validity, which wouldn't be much of an issue. Whereas my understanding was that they would be refundable only before they became valid.
Of course that means if you want to buy a ticket in advance, then you probably want an Advance if you might want to change your mind on the day of travel, because these would presumably remain changeable up to booked departure?
You are correct, their rationale says they are aligning themselves with other national operators such as DB who only allow refunds before tickets become valid to use.
