Can you use the return portion of a day return ticket if you do not use the first outward journey ticket?

[waterpoo]

Could you provide a link to that thread?

There is no moral outcry because it is market based pricing and most of us can understand why it works this way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==


On the one hand you claim that the fares are price gouging, but on the other you recognise that they are "overpacked". What would the result be of cheaper fares in the popular direction?

I wouldnt mind the price gouging as much if they invested that profit, bare in mind usually the aisles are full of people so there must be alot, into more carriages so there wasnt so much over crowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldnt mind the price gouging as much if they invested that profit, bare in mind usually the aisles are full of people so there must be alot, into more carriages so there wasnt so much over crowding.

The railway is about to be nationalised and makes a loss, so I'm not sure why you would think it isn't doing that.

 

[AlterEgo]

The railway is about to be nationalised and makes a loss, so I'm not sure why you would think it isn't doing that.

The company they were caught on is already nationalised, and runs on nationalised infrastructure too.

 

[waterpoo]

The railway is about to be nationalised and makes a loss, so I'm not sure why you would think it isn't doing that.

Because the train was still packed every time? and the price went up and up haha.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

The company they were caught on is already nationalised, and runs on nationalised infrastructure too.

caught with a valid ticket

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

The company they were caught on is already nationalised, and runs on nationalised infrastructure too.

its just constant excuses for the railway, whilst the opposite for consumers. It's so wrong.

 

[em81]

Using the return renders the outward invalid. You don't have to have used the outward at all (or indeed all of either portion, provided the ticket allows break of journey), and there's no solid way of proving if you did or not anyway, bar if you're using it so early in the day you physically couldn't have done.

I think this is an interesting situation. I've noticed Off Peak Returns having the same code to scan for both directions, which means if it's been scanned for entry at the destination station, or on a train going away from the destination, the return section has clearly been used.

On tickets without scannable codes, no ticket inspector ever asks to see the return portion when you are making the outward journey. They do have a time and printed on them, which may look suspicious in certain circumstances. For example, say I had an Irlam to Manchester return, printed at Manchester Piccadilly at 09:45, and was using the outbound portion to travel towards Manchester at 15:00. However, that alone wouldn't be proof the return section had already been used.

 

[waterpoo]

I think this is an interesting situation. I've noticed Off Peak Returns having the same code to scan for both directions, which means if it's been scanned for entry at the destination station, or on a train going away from the destination, the return section has clearly been used.

On tickets without scannable codes, no ticket inspector ever asks to see the return portion when you are making the outward journey. They do have a time and printed on them, which may look suspicious in certain circumstances. For example, say I had an Irlam to Manchester return, printed at Manchester Piccadilly at 09:45, and was using the outbound portion to travel towards Manchester at 15:00. However, that alone wouldn't be proof the return section had already been used.

Thanks for appreciating the interesting case and not just insisting im a lying criminal like others seem intent on for whatever reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

its just constant excuses for the railway, whilst the opposite for consumers. It's so wrong.

I don't disagree that the railway is very anti-customer at times. No more so than things like the LNER fare increase trial and its TPE and Avanti forthcoming brethren. However I am not sure how enforcing against people who are blatently misusing tickets is customer unfriendly, surely quite the opposite as it keeps fares or taxes down. (See also people who seem to get uppity at being asked to show their receipt when leaving a shop, a simple and quick thing that reduces theft and so keeps prices down).

If the railway is no longer for profit, then any given fare related initiative can only affect farepayer or taxpayer, really. The "fat cat" argument goes away.

 

[waterpoo]

I think there are questions to be asked if someone uses such a return portion when the single fare for the journey is cheaper. I don’t think it would be unreasonable for rail staff to cancel or withdraw the outward portion.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...etimes-a-return-ticket-can-be-cheaper.164386/ this is a different thread but still confirms the ticket is valid.

 

[MrJeeves]

This is my point, there are so many reasons why someone could end up travelling on the return.

Yet none of them seem to apply to you, hence the confusion from all of us!

I dont know how you can operate like this without making assumptions about people and being biased! It just seems so open to abuse of profiling, assumption of guilt, and lack of due legal process.

I would also really like people to question WHY the exact same journey is almost half the price for people travelling one direction at the exact same time. I do not think that is right at all. Its just price gouging, where is the moral outcry for this?

I think questioning a usage pattern very commonly used for fare evasion is how you would detect fare evasion, yes.

I don't think the example where someone's entire ticket is taken off them and they are given nothing in exchange is justifiable, though.

Yeah so they can make more money because demand is higher so people have to pay it?

Yes, that's how pricing works.

Our railways run at lower subsidy, and therefore optimising for revenue is important. Including when considering how over-capacity our network already is.

The realistic alternative in today's political climate would be people pay the higher price in both directions, at which point you're disadvantaging more people unnecessarily.

I wouldnt mind the price gouging as much if they invested that profit, bare in mind usually the aisles are full of people so there must be alot, into more carriages so there wasnt so much over crowding.

Within the industry as a whole, there is no profit. Private companies within the industry make relatively small profits in exchange for taking day-to-day risk away from the government.

Thanks for appreciating the interesting case and not just insisting im a lying criminal like others seem intent on for whatever reason.

I don't necessarily think that people think you're a criminal. You've simply providing no reasoning behind your needless use of a more expensive ticket for the journey you're making.

 

[waterpoo]

Could you provide a link to that thread?

There is no moral outcry because it is market based pricing and most of us can understand why it works this way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==


On the one hand you claim that the fares are price gouging, but on the other you recognise that they are "overpacked". What would the result be of cheaper fares in the popular direction?

meant to reply to this one sorry

 

[Bletchleyite]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...etimes-a-return-ticket-can-be-cheaper.164386/ this is a different thread but still confirms the ticket is valid.

Nobody is saying it isn't, if you use only the return half and do not use the outward.

However, if there is no good reason to do that, i.e. a single would be cheaper and it's early in the day so you clearly haven't travelled the other way by a different means, it is entirely understandable that the railway might at least want to ask why and to ensure there isn't indeed misuse planned, as there almost certainly is, as why would you do that otherwise?

 

[RyanOPlasty]

If I buy a return ticket but get to my destination by other means, then it seems absurd to be required to refund my ticket and buy a new single ticket for my return journey.
The railway has not lost any money in these circumstances; indeed, the return will always be at least a few pence more than a single.

The circumstances that cause me to do this should be irrelevant, but if the railway has caused me to use alternative transport to get to my destination in time then penalising me is ridiculous, even if legally permitted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the example where someone's entire ticket is taken off them and they are given nothing in exchange is justifiable, though.

It would appear the member of staff doing this was acting counter to policy. If withdrawing a ticket for investigation a receipt allowing travel to be completed is supposed to be issued.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

If I buy a return ticket but get to my destination by other means, then it seems absurd to be required to refund my ticket and buy a new single ticket for my return journey.
The railway has not lost any money in these circumstances; indeed, the return will always be at least a few pence more than a single.

The circumstances that cause me to do this should be irrelevant, but if the railway has caused me to use alternative transport to get to my destination in time then penalising me is ridiculous, even if legally permitted.

And that's fine. However, the original poster was doing it in very suspicious circumstances - travelling early in the day on the return half with seemingly no sensible reason to do so. I do note above that I did this and got asked about it by an RPI years ago (the journey was for a before-work run and I genuinely was returning around 7am having gone outward at the crack of dawn) and I've also done it for the same reason recently but wasn't questioned because Bletchley guards never do tickets and RPIs tend not to bother with quiet northbound services in the morning peak, but had I been I'd have explained what I was doing, not got my back up.

Just as I very often purchase Bletchley-MKC and MKC-Bletchley singles which have a scan in only one direction and thus probably look for all the world like short faring - but they aren't, because they are to extend a long distance journey, so I show the other ticket as well and everything is fine, I don't get my back up about a sensible piece of enforcement against something that does look a bit suspicious.

(Note: again, to clarify, I do believe the member of staff who withdrew the ticket without providing a receipt was acting in breach of policy)

 

[waterpoo]

Yet none of them seem to apply to you, hence the confusion from all of us!


I think questioning a usage pattern very commonly used for fare evasion is how you would detect fare evasion, yes.

I don't think the example where someone's entire ticket is taken off them and they are given nothing in exchange is justifiable, though.


Yes, that's how pricing works.

Our railways run at lower subsidy, and therefore optimising for revenue is important. Including when considering how over-capacity our network already is.

The realistic alternative in today's political climate would be people pay the higher price in both directions, at which point you're disadvantaging more people unnecessarily.


Within the industry as a whole, there is no profit. Private companies within the industry make relatively small profits in exchange for taking day-to-day risk away from the government.


I don't necessarily think that people think you're a criminal. You've simply providing no reasoning behind your needless use of a more expensive ticket for the journey you're making.

Thanks for your response MrJeeves. Why is the railway ran in a way which is so unprofitable? I'll have to dig into it. Our train prices are far more expensive than Europes - where is the money going!

I dont know why I need to provide reasoning for travelling on a valid ticket, no matter what form or how I bought that trip's valid ticket. In all honesty, I learnt it was legal to travel on the return portion because I accidently bought tickets the wrong way round and didnt want to buy a whole new return, so travelled on the return and then travelled back on the cheapest new single ticket I could get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

Nobody is saying it isn't, if you use only the return half and do not use the outward.

However, if there is no good reason to do that, i.e. a single would be cheaper and it's early in the day so you clearly haven't travelled the other way by a different means, it is entirely understandable that the railway might at least want to ask why and to ensure there isn't indeed misuse planned, as there almost certainly is, as why would you do that otherwise?

 

[AlterEgo]

Can I suggest you take a step back from this issue again before it really consumes you? Wait for any correspondence from SWR that comes and then ask how you should respond once you know what, if anything the company is accusing you of and what, if any, losses they are pursuing from you.

 

[waterpoo]

Thanks for your response MrJeeves. Why is the railway ran in a way which is so unprofitable? I'll have to dig into it. Our train prices are far more expensive than Europes - where is the money going!

I dont know why I need to provide reasoning for travelling on a valid ticket, no matter what form or how I bought that trip's valid ticket. In all honesty, I learnt it was legal to travel on the return portion because I accidently bought tickets the wrong way round and didnt want to buy a whole new return, so travelled on the return and then travelled back on the cheapest new single ticket I could get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

Can I suggest you take a step back from this issue again before it really consumes you? Wait for any correspondence from SWR that comes and then ask how you should respond once you know what, if anything the company is accusing you of and what, if any, losses they are pursuing from you.

I know I really struggle with become fixated on things. Im just really stressed they will prosecute me unknowingly and I'll end up with bailiffs. Thanks Alterego

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know I really struggle with become fixated on things. Im just really stressed they will prosecute me unknowingly and I'll end up with bailiffs. Thanks Alterego

If they prosecute you unknowingly you can make a Statutory Declaration and reset things back to before they did. People can be convicted in their absence if they just choose not to attend Court despite knowing about it, but a conviction in someone's absence that they didn't find out about before the court date so they could attend is easily reversed so they can get their Court date and attend and the trial can take place properly with them present if they wish to be.

It is however unusual (by which I mean "entirely unknown") for a TOC to prosecute without asking for at least an explanation first, even if they then proceed because one was not provided.

 

[waterpoo]

If they prosecute you unknowingly you can make a Statutory Declaration and reset things back to before they did.

Yeah I have looked into it and check the magistrates cases every day. Life is not easy at the best of times and this ordeal really has messed up my mental health. I would be ok if I was given a penalty notice I could appeal and argue my case of ticket validity, but he really did just take my tickets with no explanation and walked off. I just dont trust the fairness of the system. but yeah thankyou I will save the statutory declaration info for the future if it materialises.

I really am not someone who cannot take accountability, but the way I treated was just not ok and I appreciate everyone who has pointed out it wasnt protocol or procedure to act like that.

 

[AlterEgo]

I know I really struggle with become fixated on things. Im just really stressed they will prosecute me unknowingly and I'll end up with bailiffs. Thanks Alterego

Prosecution seems unlikely in your case given there is no evidence the company can realistically put forward of *criminal* wrongdoing. If they do threaten this, the forum can assist you with a defence. Because regardless of whether I think you've been fiddling your fares or not, the company does not have proof to the criminal standard and we can assist you with that.

 

[MrJeeves]

Thanks for your response MrJeeves. Why is the railway ran in a way which is so unprofitable? I'll have to dig into it. Our train prices are far more expensive than Europes - where is the money going!

European railways aren't profitable either. The lower ticket prices are simply achieved through even larger government subsidies, because they realise investing in social mobility brings economic benefits to their country. Our country would rather make driving cheaper instead.

There have been other threads about rail subsidy in Great Britain compared to other countries on the forum before:

Subsidy in the UK compared to Other Countries

Moderator Note - split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/2024-fare-revision.259725/ In 2008 total Government support was £8.053bn In 2022 it was £21.1bn https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1541/table-7270-government-support-to-the-rail-industry.ods The subsidy per passenger km in...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[waterpoo]

Prosecution seems unlikely in your case given there is no evidence the company can realistically put forward of *criminal* wrongdoing. If they do threaten this, the forum can assist you with a defence. Because regardless of whether I think you've been fiddling your fares or not, the company does not have proof to the criminal standard and we can assist you with that.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I have heard debate on whether the advice this forum gives is an annoyance to the TOCs and I just want to say that in the justice system defence barristers/solicitors exist for a reason. It ensures a fair system when abuse of justice, false convictions eg, is not so easily allowed. Most people will never be able to afford a solicitor for things like fare evasion. It is also the mental aspect of the relief of being able to hear advice from people who know what they are talking about.
So just to say, I think this forum plays a really really important role in upholding justice in a part of the law which has been proven to abuse its power in the past https://www.expresssolicitors.co.uk/unlawful-train-fare-prosecutions

Thank you to everyone who takes the time to help people on here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

European railways aren't profitable either. The lower ticket prices are simply achieved through even larger government subsidies, because they realise investing in social mobility brings economic benefits to their country. Our country would rather make driving cheaper instead.

There have been other threads about rail subsidy in Great Britain compared to other countries on the forum before:

Subsidy in the UK compared to Other Countries

Moderator Note - split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/2024-fare-revision.259725/ In 2008 total Government support was £8.053bn In 2022 it was £21.1bn https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1541/table-7270-government-support-to-the-rail-industry.ods The subsidy per passenger km in...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks I will have a read, I'd be so interested to know how much was spent on revenue protection annually too.

 

[Haywain]

I'd be so interested to know how much was spent on revenue protection annually too.

I'm not sure how easily you will find such information, but it's worth remembering that fare evasion isn't a result of high fares and is just as much a problem in much of Europe as it is here.

 

[Swedenorer]

Thanks for your response MrJeeves. Why is the railway ran in a way which is so unprofitable? I'll have to dig into it. Our train prices are far more expensive than Europes - where is the money going!

Railways in the UK have not been seriously profitable for anybody since about 1930. The old private companies just about broke even most years but didn't pay much in the way of dividends to their shareholders. After nationalisation in 1947 there were a few good years but more significantly since say 1960 they have never really broken even without significant government subsidy. So to put it simply if the passenger does not pay the taxpayer does. Every theoretical attempt to come up with a system that might be profitable always involves such significant closures as to be politically unacceptable - usually with a good dose of Beeching Bashing to go with it. So in the wise words of Spencer Quist 'Somebody has to pay!' Many taxpayers might chose the passenger!

 

[waterpoo]

I'm not sure how easily you will find such information, but it's worth remembering that fare evasion isn't a result of high fares and is just as much a problem in much of Europe as it is here.

I'd be pretty surprised if there was no correlation between increased ticket price and fare evasion. Watching the show, almost all evaders cite money as the reason for the evasion.

And if you cant find the information for uk, how can you know it is as much of a problem elsewhere?

 

[SuspectUsual]

I'd be pretty surprised if there was no correlation between increased ticket price and fare evasion. Watching the show, almost all evaders cite money as the reason for the evasion.

And if you cant find the information for uk, how can you know it is as much of a problem elsewhere?

I think it's as much a general increase in prices causing increased financial pressure, and fare evasion often being seen as a relatively easy way to save money. For example, train ticket prices haven't increased as much as gas and electricity prices in recent years, but its a lot easy to bunk the gates / doughnut / use a moody railcard than it is to fix a gas meter

 

[waterpoo]

Railways in the UK have not been seriously profitable for anybody since about 1930. The old private companies just about broke even most years but didn't pay much in the way of dividends to their shareholders. After nationalisation in 1947 there were a few good years but more significantly since say 1960 they have never really broken even without significant government subsidy. So to put it simply if the passenger does not pay the taxpayer does. Every theoretical attempt to come up with a system that might be profitable always involves such significant closures as to be politically unacceptable - usually with a good dose of Beeching Bashing to go with it. So in the wise words of Spencer Quist 'Somebody has to pay!' Many taxpayers might chose the passenger!

the irony being the passengers are the tax payers! So essentially, we pay (subsidise) for the trains to run, and we pay for tickets, and we pay the penalty fares. Kinda funny when you thin about it like that.

Thanks for your response, first I have heard about Beeching.

I very much agree with MrJeeves that it is much smarter to encourage social mobility through affordable travel.

 

[Haywain]

I'd be pretty surprised if there was no correlation between increased ticket price and fare evasion.

People jump fares on London buses which are the cheapest in the country, they jump fares on trams and the underground, and they evade fares on journeys of all lengths and fares on the rail network. And in my very limited experience of travel in Europe I have seen several cases of people being taken off trains for fare evasion. It is a myth that it is exclusive to Britain due to high fares.

almost all evaders cite money as the reason for the evasion.

Yet almost none of them cite affordability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==

the irony being the passengers are the tax payers!

There are vastly more taxpayers in the UK than there are rail passengers.

 

[waterpoo]

I think it's as much a general increase in prices causing increased financial pressure, and fare evasion often being seen as a relatively easy way to save money. For example, train ticket prices haven't increased as much as gas and electricity prices in recent years, but its a lot easy to bunk the gates / doughnut / use a moody railcard than it is to fix a gas meter

Yes but you can reduce gas, electric usage, its much harder to replace a commute, but it can be done. I just get up really early now and get the bus.

 

[AlterEgo]

People jump fares on London buses which are the cheapest in the country, they jump fares on trams and the underground, and they evade fares on journeys of all lengths and fares on the rail network. And in my very limited experience of travel in Europe I have seen several cases of people being taken off trains for fare evasion. It is a myth that it is exclusive to Britain due to high fares.

Only yesterday I saw three guys vault the barriers on the Madrid Metro which is very cheap. People do it because they think they won't get caught. Saving money is just a bonus for many.

 

[waterpoo]

People jump fares on London buses which are the cheapest in the country, they jump fares on trams and the underground, and they evade fares on journeys of all lengths and fares on the rail network. And in my very limited experience of travel in Europe I have seen several cases of people being taken off trains for fare evasion. It is a myth that it is exclusive to Britain due to high fares.

Yet almost none of them cite affordability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2026 ==


There are vastly more taxpayers in the UK than there are rail passengers.

I'd like to see some data backing what you say up.

What like they didnt specifically say the words ' I cannot afford it', no offense but are you autistic too?