Split ticketing - a blessing or a curse?

[robbeech]

I think it is perfectly possible to have one journey containing multiple tickets where breaks are allowed on some of them but not others. Combining an Advance on an intercity leg with an Anytime Day Single on a local leg is totally normal and absolutely does constitute one journey, and people were doing that long before splitting sites even existed.

Don't give them any more ideas than they already have!

I don't see any issue with the interpretation of "while using this ticket, you cannot break your journey", which is how it works.

Yes, if one or more tickets has no break of journey restriction, but my point was just the terminology and meaning of the word journey.

If you had an advance Edinburgh to Newcastle and one Newcastle to York there’s absolutely nothing wrong with buying them with 2 hours gap in the middle and getting off at Newcastle for lunch and a walk around the city. But you shouldn’t then exercise any rights you may have had for an Edinburgh to York journey as the combination of tickets that you are claiming is being used as one has restrictions prohibiting this.
If one is an advance and the other an off peak single (or similar) there’s no issue at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, if one or more tickets has no break of journey restriction, but my point was just the terminology and meaning of the word journey.

If you had an advance Edinburgh to Newcastle and one Newcastle to York there’s absolutely nothing wrong with buying them with 2 hours gap in the middle and getting off at Newcastle for lunch and a walk around the city. But you shouldn’t then exercise any rights you may have had for an Edinburgh to York journey as the combination of tickets that you are claiming is being used as one has restrictions prohibiting this.
If one is an advance and the other an off peak single (or similar) there’s no issue at all.

I completely disagree. You may not break your journey within each Advance (much as I think that's a stupid restriction because there's no practical reason you shouldn't pop out between booked trains provided you make the entire booked journey as booked), but it is totally reasonable to do so between them without it being two journeys. Sticking a one stop Anytime Day Single in the middle of the two Advances makes absolutely no difference, that's just silly. But that's the implication of your suggestion.

I think morally what you do need to do, where it could be seen as either, is decide whether it's one journey or two before you start it, though, and only claim benefits (e.g. Delay Repay) based on one of the two options. But that's a personal view. But without any doubt if it's sold as one itinerary it's one journey.

 

[robbeech]

(much as I think that's a stupid restriction because there's no practical reason you shouldn't pop out between booked trains provided you make the entire booked journey as booked)

Agreed fully. It doesn’t negatively affect the railway in any way.

Sticking a one stop Anytime Day Single in the middle of the two Advances makes absolutely no difference, that's just silly. But that's the implication of your suggestion.

I’m not sure it is, simply consider it 2 journeys, the end results in your travel shouldn’t be affected but your rights would (as indeed they should) be based upon you making 2 journeys, and that is because……..

I think morally what you do need to do, where it could be seen as either, is decide whether it's one journey or two before you start it,

Something I’ve always said in relation to the delay repay, and it applies here too.

It goes back to my earlier point of having your cake and eating it, the railway would jump at any chance to decimate passenger rights further.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something I’ve always said in relation to the delay repay, and it applies here too.

It doesn't, because a ticket can only affect itself. That an Advance ticket bars break of journey within that ticket (as that is all that it can do - it cannot affect a different contract of travel whether made separately or at the same time) does not mean that break of journey is banned between two tickets as part of one journey.

It's a bit moot anyway, as I've only ever heard of one case in my entire life where staff refused a passenger permission to go to the shop between trains.

 

[sleepy_hollow]

As for whether ticket offices should sell such things, I believe there has long been an official claim that ticket offices must offer the cheapest fare for a journey, which gets more & more meaningless the more you try & work out what it means, but imagine the outcry if ticket offices were not expected to do that, if in fact they never asked when a traveller was travelling & offered any appropriate advances or splits.

The fundamental problem is that we have a complicated often train specific fare system in a country that still thinks there should be one flexible ticket for every journey, although being aware of & happy to choose the split option now they know of it.

Splitting is not a new phenomenon. In the sixties my mother always rebooked at Wakefield so making a Goole to Rochdale journey on two day returns rather than one period return.

 

[mmh]

I don't think we need Chief Inspector Barnaby to work out may have happened here.

It's usually a good idea to be suspicious of elaborately detailed anecdotes

 

[redreni]

I think morally what you do need to do, where it could be seen as either, is decide whether it's one journey or two before you start it, though, and only claim benefits (e.g. Delay Repay) based on one of the two options. But that's a personal view. But without any doubt if it's sold as one itinerary it's one journey.

I used to subscribe to this view, but I've had too many interactions with TOCs where they will invent a rule to fit the situation. They're not deciding before your journey starts how they're going to interpret the rules. They only make that decision when you contact them asking for compensation, or a refund, or whatever it may be, and in my experience they often do so in an entirely self-serving way. So the morality of how we, as the little guy in this relationship, should or shouldn't behave has to be coloured by that, in my view.

 

[CyrusWuff]

As for whether ticket offices should sell such things, I believe there has long been an official claim that ticket offices must offer the cheapest fare for a journey, which gets more & more meaningless the more you try & work out what it means, but imagine the outcry if ticket offices were not expected to do that, if in fact they never asked when a traveller was travelling & offered any appropriate advances or splits.

The tl;dr requirement is that Train Company staff must not proactively offer a split unless no through fare for the journey described by the customer exists, as it's a breach of impartial retailing rules.

This applies just as much to a member of staff working for GTR who sells an Alexandra Palace to Knebworth ticket and a Knebworth to Cambridge ticket instead of an Alexandra Palace to Cambridge ticket (all of which are priced by GTR) as it does to a member of staff working for Chiltern who sells a London to Princes Risborough ticket and a Princes Risborough to Oxford ticket (both of which are priced by Chiltern) instead of a London to Oxford ticket (priced by GWR.)

If our hypothetical London to Oxford customer explicitly requests a split at Princes Risborough, however, the member of staff would be permitted to sell it.

 

[saismee]

If our hypothetical London to Oxford customer explicitly requests a split at Princes Risborough, however, the member of staff would be permitted to sell it.

Now what if they say "get me the cheapest tickets which will allow me travel on the next train to X"?

I think the bigger problem with splits is that people get them from apps and don't understand the additional restrictions, or don't understand advance splits. "But it says Anytime Day Single!!" yes, for one stop, then you must be on the XX:XX from there.

 

[Haywain]

Now what if they say "get me the cheapest tickets which will allow me travel on the next train to X"?

They should be offered the cheapest appropriate through ticket for the specified journey and train. Just using the plural "tickets" doesn't alter what will be offered.

 

[andy33gmail]

They should be offered the cheapest appropriate through ticket for the specified journey and train. Just using the plural "tickets" doesn't alter what will be offered.

Sounds dishonest to me.

Edit:

A little like asking a dealership “what’s your cheapest car on sale” and walking away with a Golf

 

[AlterEgo]

Sounds dishonest to me.

What would be more more honest, in your view?

 

[andy33gmail]

What would be more more honest, in your view?

To provide the cheapest available itinerary, and warn the customer of its caveats (e.g. use of a specific train or a longer route)

 

[robbeech]

Sounds dishonest to me.

Edit:

A little like asking a dealership “what’s your cheapest car on sale” and walking away with a Golf

Would you sooner them sell you an Up! And a Polo?

 

[LJA]

For me a system where split tickets are cheaper for a simple point to point journey on the same train is pretty illogical at its heart.

Given it’s a (unintended?) result of the whole ticketing system in the UK I’m not saying I have any idea how to fix it, but I’d imagine the vast majority of “normal” travellers feel the same way.

 

[Adam Williams]

To provide the cheapest available itinerary, and warn the customer of its caveats (e.g. use of a specific train or a longer route)

And if the industry chooses to make it effectively impossible to exhaustively do this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For me a system where split tickets are cheaper for a simple point to point journey on the same train is pretty illogical at its heart.

Given it’s a (unintended?) result of the whole ticketing system in the UK I’m not saying I have any idea how to fix it, but I’d imagine the vast majority of “normal” travellers feel the same way.

I was pretty astonished that the brand-new fares set for south WCML Oval has split anomalies in the Anytime Day Singles. This seems to be a really simple thing to fix with ten minutes and Excel. I get how anomalies develop, and why you get them with strung-together Day Returns and the quota issues that give rise to them in Advances, but not to have checked a new walk-up fares set for obvious ones seems almost negligent.

 

[Haywain]

To provide the cheapest available itinerary, and warn the customer of its caveats (e.g. use of a specific train or a longer route)

The question was what the fare would be for the "cheapest tickets which will allow me travel on the next train to X", which would appear to preclude offering the cheapest available itinerary if it isn't the next train to X. That doesn't mean a cheaper through fare would not be, if available, provided as an alternative option.

 

[AlterEgo]

To provide the cheapest available itinerary, and warn the customer of its caveats (e.g. use of a specific train or a longer route)

But they aren't able to guarantee that. Not even the forum site can *guarantee* it.

Feel free to start a thread in the Speculative Discussion section if you want.

 

[35B]

I used to subscribe to this view, but I've had too many interactions with TOCs where they will invent a rule to fit the situation. They're not deciding before your journey starts how they're going to interpret the rules. They only make that decision when you contact them asking for compensation, or a refund, or whatever it may be, and in my experience they often do so in an entirely self-serving way. So the morality of how we, as the little guy in this relationship, should or shouldn't behave has to be coloured by that, in my view.

I disagree, strongly. That approach descends to their level.

A through journey on a single itinerary, strung together with split tickets, is IMHO a single journey. All decisions about consequences of delay need to follow from that, whether Delay Repay, rerouting, or whatever else. And that needs to bind both operator(s) and customers.

There may be circumstances where it works well or badly for an individual (e.g. differing DR regimes on two different operators), but the logic comes back to how the rules work and what the cause of delay is.

 

[Killingworth]

I don't think we need Chief Inspector Barnaby to work out may have happened here.

It's usually a good idea to be suspicious of elaborately detailed anecdotes

Pardon me, I'm sorry you're suspicious but the specific case I quoted in my original post was explained as fully as possible and was further illustrated by 2 other journeys without more specific elaboration.

He had an Advance single ticket (time of sale apparently exactly one hour before the train left) for a specific Northern train from Manchester to Dore and an Anytime Day Single valid via any permitted route between Dore and Nottingham.

My point is that the very many possible sales outlets don't make it easy for a novice to select the best deal despite all professing to do so. Online sales channels all try to make it appear simple. They mostly are - for the likes of those on this Forum.

Having travelled from Chesterfield to Cheltenham a few times I've learned to research the best deals online. Playing musical chairs it may often be by splitting at Derby and New Street - which will probably lead to me not occupying some or all of the specific reserved seats. I'd like to think I know when I have flexibility to choose different trains within the validity of the tickets.

Turning to booking office sales, for someone unfamiliar with the myriad options of routes, timings and fares (including railcards etc) it's very easy to understand how the effect of a small misunderstood nuance by either party in the conversation may result in a less helpful sale being made. (In the specific case quoted we can't know if there may have been a queuing issue. I've seen a big queue at Manchester Airport where many overseas visitors were wrestling with the complexities in a language with which they were unfamiliar.)

I still wonder how sales like these impact on the ORR statistics. I understand they wonder too and are considering some back dated adjustments to recent year's figures.

 

[Haywain]

He had an Advance single ticket (time of sale apparently exactly one hour before the train left) for a specific Northern train from Manchester to Dore and an Anytime Day Single valid via any permitted route between Dore and Nottingham.

The problem I have with this is that the same fares would have almost certainly applied for a split at Sheffield, and a split of walk-up tickets at Stockport is actually cheaper. I find it slightly difficult to believe that a ticket office might not be aware of this (the former, if not the latter), and a splitting site seems unlikely to offer the split at Dore.

 

[Killingworth]

The problem I have with this is that the same fares would have almost certainly applied for a split at Sheffield, and a split of walk-up tickets at Stockport is actually cheaper. I find it slightly difficult to believe that a ticket office might not be aware of this (the former, if not the latter), and a splitting site seems unlikely to offer the split at Dore.

Living near Dore I find it hard to understand too but I've given 3 examples where this happened and I spoke to the people and saw their tickets. I didn't take copies of the other two believing them to be one offs which is why I copied this one.

Sometimes it can be cheaper to change at Grindleford but all these peculiarities may change by the hour and day. One I checked was that a day return from Grindleford to Dore then a day return from Dore to Manchester was cheaper than direct from Grindleford to Piccadilly. Pre-Covid one commuter was managing to do it 4 days a week. Last time I checked that wasn't available.

It can certainly be cheaper to get a ticket from Sheffield or Dore to Grindleford or Hathersage then a Manchester Wayfarer that could include trains, trams and buses in the TfGM area - (check available times).

From two or three viewponts it may work well.

1. Hopefully passengers who can be flexible with their time get cheaper prices.

2. Northern in particular, but sometimes EMR and TPE, can fill their otherwise quieter and longer trains and price users away from their busier ones.

3. By smoothing out peaks and troughs the railway should be able to carry more, hopefully if done well maximising revenue wthout need for more rolling stock.

 

[Krokodil]

Selling splits that aren’t asked for can confuse passengers and lead them into situations where they could get into trouble.

Surely this applies as much to Trainline as to a ticket office.

(funny how it finds it easy to get round to things that are to its advantage)

You'd be surprised at how difficult it is to get the pricing team to make apparently simple changes that close loopholes.

 

[andy33gmail]

But they aren't able to guarantee that. Not even the forum site can *guarantee* it.

Feel free to start a thread in the Speculative Discussion section if you want.

I'm not being speculative

If a vendor is asked for "the cheapest tickets" and offer tickets which you are aware are not the cheapest, that is fraud. It might be unenforceable, it might be understandable, but it's fraud

That said, I fully accept your point - that it's not realistically possible within the current framework to answer the question as presented - which is nuts.

 

[35B]

I'm not being speculative

If a vendor is asked for "the cheapest tickets" and offer tickets which you are aware are not the cheapest, that is fraud. It might be unenforceable, it might be understandable, but it's fraud

That said, I fully accept your point - that it's not realistically possible within the current framework to answer the question as presented - which is nuts.

It is not fraud. It is an answer to the question asked, where the explicit rule binding the retailer is that they must not offer split tickets unless directly asked for them.

If I ask at a ticket office for the cheapest ticket(s) from A to B, that is not in itself a request for a split ticket. Setting aside whether it is possible to know that a particular option is the cheapest, the ticket clerk does not know what constraints I may be under, or what level of knowledge I have (hence this whole thread). They are then bound by rules that require impartiality as between TOCs*.

The honest answer is "the cheapest through ticket I can sell you at the time you wish to travel is..."; if the customer is aware enough to seek a split, they can then ask for a split which may lead to a different conversation.

 

[andy33gmail]

The honest answer is "the cheapest through ticket I can sell you at the time you wish to travel is..."; if the customer is aware enough to seek a split, they can then ask for a split which may lead to a different conversation.

I agree with you there. A conditional answer is required

 

[Haywain]

I agree with you there. A conditional answer is required

No, it isn't.

 

[redreni]

I disagree, strongly. That approach descends to their level.

A through journey on a single itinerary, strung together with split tickets, is IMHO a single journey. All decisions about consequences of delay need to follow from that, whether Delay Repay, rerouting, or whatever else. And that needs to bind both operator(s) and customers.

There may be circumstances where it works well or badly for an individual (e.g. differing DR regimes on two different operators), but the logic comes back to how the rules work and what the cause of delay is.

I think it's a perfectly decent principle to be straight with people as long as they're straight with you. It takes quite a bit of provocation for me to conclude that being straight with people who are, on a regular basis, fundamentally unprincipled and self-serving, often to the point where they're in breach of contract and/or in breach of their legal or regulatory duties, in their dealings with me, is a mug's game.

I'm there with the GB TOCs, I'm afraid.

 

[Krokodil]

It is not fraud. It is an answer to the question asked, where the explicit rule binding the retailer is that they must not offer split tickets unless directly asked for them.

If I ask at a ticket office for the cheapest ticket(s) from A to B, that is not in itself a request for a split ticket. Setting aside whether it is possible to know that a particular option is the cheapest, the ticket clerk does not know what constraints I may be under, or what level of knowledge I have (hence this whole thread). They are then bound by rules that require impartiality as between TOCs*.

The honest answer is "the cheapest through ticket I can sell you at the time you wish to travel is..."; if the customer is aware enough to seek a split, they can then ask for a split which may lead to a different conversation.

So when the passenger goes "but it was cheaper on Trainline", what should the response be?