Fictitious flow printed using ToD

[maniacmartin]

Hi all,

Today I purchased what I thought was a Y-P Off-Peak Return from London Terminals to Cambridge, priced £22.10.

I did this by searching for "Kings Cross" to "Cambridge" in Red Spotted Hanky and buying the £22.10 ticket. I then collected this ticket from a Parkeon ToDler ToD-only TVM at Clapham Junction.

I immediately noticed that the ticket's origin is LONDON KINGS X, not LONDON TERMINALS as I expected. The ticket I've been vended is for a flow that doesn't exist.

My Redspottedhanky confirmation email says:

Journey: 1 London Kings Cross to Cambridge @ £22.10
OFF-PEAK R £22.10 (1 @ £22.10)
With 1 16-25 Railcard railcard(s)
Remember to bring the railcard(s) for the journey
Your Payment Card **** has been charged £7.10
You have used loyalty points £5.00
You have used loyalty points £5.00
You have used loyalty points £5.00
Our terms and conditions and the National Conditions of Carriage apply to this booking and are available at www.redspottedhanky.com

Journey: 1 London Kings Cross to Cambridge
Ticket type: Off Peak Return Valid on off-peak services by the route and Train operator shown. Return travel any day within 1 month.
Route: Via Any Permitted Route
Outward journey: 14 Jun 2013
Suggested service departs London Kings Cross at 17:22 travel by Train service provider First Capital Connect to station Cambridge arrives 18:54
Return journey: 16 Jun 2013

This is no good for me as I wanted to have a break of journey on the return portion, on the line to Liverpool St.

Does anyone have any idea what went wrong here?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Presumably just another TODler bug, no?

 

[maniacmartin]

Other people on this forum have told me they have bought tickets in the past and specified St Pancras, but it printed correctly as London Terminals, so I don't think its that simple.

 

[transportphoto]

I would back the TODler bug theory... I think the tickets they chuck out look fraudulent anyway but that's for another time!! May be worth contacting SWT (issuing TOC) and RSH and see what they say! Shouldn't affect validity on Liverpool Street lines though.

TP

 

[RJ]

I'm in the ticket office today. Just looking through RJIS, it shows there are London Terminals to Cambridge tickets - and also tickets from Kings Cross to Cambridge for the same price.

So it's a case of getting what you ask for!

 

[Paul Kelly]

Very interesting. I just checked and there is no SVR fare defined explicitly from King's Cross to Cambridge in the public ATOC fares data extract from 22nd May, so it must have been added more recently than that. In the public extract the only fares defined explicitly from King's Cross are some carnet fares.

If fares explicitly from King's Cross exist, then I guess Red Spotted Hanky (and indeed any booking engine) will always offer them in preference over the more generally defined London Terminals fares.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

When I put 'London' or 'London Kings Cross' into Fastis it shows the Kings Cross fare (though it does show only trains from Kings Cross), If I put in 'London Liverpool Street' it shows up the London Terminals Fares.

A fares only check brings up both sets of fares from each of the origins

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm in the ticket office today. Just looking through RJIS, it shows there are London Terminals to Cambridge tickets - and also tickets from Kings Cross to Cambridge for the same price.

So it's a case of getting what you ask for!

If it is a real fare, then it sets a worrying precedent. Is this just a way for the lead operator on a flow to make a TOC-specific ticket in an underhand way? It is very easy to inadvertantly buy the wrong ticket given that they're the same price and type.

 

[greatkingrat]

I'm in the ticket office today. Just looking through RJIS, it shows there are London Terminals to Cambridge tickets - and also tickets from Kings Cross to Cambridge for the same price.

So it's a case of getting what you ask for!

What happens if you look for something like Paddington to Cambridge?

 

[maniacmartin]

I think Greater Anglia would be very interested to hear about this new flow that most likely deprives them of revenue through ORCATS.

I have contacted RSH who will not change the ticket without a £10 admin fee. Is it possible to get an overdistance excess on the origin end of the ticket? Excessing to South Bermondsey would allow me to come into Liverpool St on the return as planned.

 

[RJ]

Very interesting. I just checked and there is no SVR fare defined explicitly from King's Cross to Cambridge in the public ATOC fares data extract from 22nd May, so it must have been added more recently than that. In the public extract the only fares defined explicitly from King's Cross are some carnet fares.

If fares explicitly from King's Cross exist, then I guess Red Spotted Hanky (and indeed any booking engine) will always offer them in preference over the more generally defined London Terminals fares.

The duplicate flows with KGX as an origin are showing for types SDS/CDR/SDR/SVR/FDS/FCR/SOR/FDR and FOR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What happens if you look for something like Paddington to Cambridge?

The only fare origin showing is London Terminals.

 

[Haywain]

I'm in the ticket office today. Just looking through RJIS, it shows there are London Terminals to Cambridge tickets - and also tickets from Kings Cross to Cambridge for the same price.

So it's a case of getting what you ask for!

I suspect that you'll find that the fares enquiry will show these, but they will all issue as London Terminals.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.... Is it possible to get an overdistance excess on the origin end of the ticket?....

It is physically possible, but it is not within the rules. The rules only allow for travelling beyond the destination printed on the ticket.

 

[clagmonster]

It is physically possible, but it is not within the rules. The rules only allow for travelling beyond the destination printed on the ticket.

If Martin is travelling out from Kings X and returning to Liverpool St, this is not a problem as on the RTN portion the destination is Kings X, so an over-distance excess to South Bermondsey is possiblem. That said, I am not entirely happy this would be valid for travel into Liverpool St, as travelling to South Bermondsey via Liverpool St is surely diverging from the route at Cambridge Cheshunt or Edmonton Green.

 

[maniacmartin]

As it happens I have managed to procure a £0.00 over-distance excess to London Terminals for both legs from a somewhat baffled ticket office clerk.

 

[clagmonster]

The only routeing permission from Cambridge-London Group is WA.
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/permitted_route_identifier (version RGL WGN amended 140213).pdf page 124

Assuming walking at Enfield is a recognised interchange, map WA shows: Cambridge-Stansted-Broxbourne-Edmonton Green-Enfield Town-Enfield Chase-Finsbury Park-Kings X
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Maps.pdf page 112

So the Cambridge-Kings X portion is valid Cambridge-Cheshunt (or Edmonton Green if going via the Southbury Loop. Therefore, all that is needed is a new single from the last station Cheshunt northwards where the desired train stops to London Terminals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As it happens I have managed to procure a £0.00 over-distance excess to London Terminals for both legs from a somewhat baffled ticket office clerk.

But in this case you are not travelling over-distance, you are 'deviating from the route on the ticket to a new destination'.

 

[John @ home]

in this case you are not travelling over-distance, you are 'deviating from the route on the ticket to a new destination'.

Perhaps a better description is that the ticket clerk has issued a £0.00 excess fare to correct an error by converting a fare which does not appear in the fares manual into the appropriate fare at the same price which does appear there.

 

[clagmonster]

John, I agree that is the intention of the booking clerk. However, any TTI inspecting the ticket may not realise this, and may take my interpretation of the rules.

 

[John @ home]

John, I agree that is the intention of the booking clerk. However, any TTI inspecting the ticket may not realise this, and may take my interpretation of the rules.

In those circumstances, the TTI is instructed to withdraw both the original ticket and the excess fare ticket for investigation, and to issue a £0.00 ticket to allow maniacmartin to complete the return journey.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....That said, I am not entirely happy this would be valid for travel into Liverpool St, as travelling to South Bermondsey via Liverpool St is surely diverging from the route at Cambridge Cheshunt or Edmonton Green.

I agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In those circumstances, the TTI is instructed to withdraw both the original ticket and the excess fare ticket for investigation, and to issue a £0.00 ticket to allow maniacmartin to complete the return journey.

Which is not the situation the clerk should be putting the passenger in.

 

[clagmonster]

Indeed, the trouble is in the ensuing investigation, whether it is found that was the booking clerk's intention. While the booking clerk should be easily traceable, it could be some time before that occurs (I would imagine revenue will only look for them if a subsquent statement by passenger states that the booking clerk game permission for the ticket to be used into Liverpool St). While the defence of being instructed by the booking clerk to use the ticket to the Street is there, I can see it leading to some difficulties.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps a better description is that the ticket clerk has issued a £0.00 excess fare to correct an error by converting a fare which does not appear in the fares manual into the appropriate fare at the same price which does appear there.

Which is not the situation the clerk should be putting the passenger in.

So... what should the clerk have done? Surely the answer is not allow the passenger to walk away knowing that he is going to attempt to use 'a fare which does not appear in the fares manual'?

How fascinating.

 

[thelongestroad]

I saw a similar thing the other day. I sold a gent a ticket from Brookmans Park to London Terminals.

It printed as Brookmans Park - London Thameslink despite not specifying it.

There is no competition on that route but I did wander..

 

[yorkie]

John, I agree that is the intention of the booking clerk. However, any TTI inspecting the ticket may not realise this, and may take my interpretation of the rules.

Rules? We're going by the rules are we? In that case, the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement trumps an instruction in The Manual (as discussed here).

It would be unlawful for the rail industry to go against the TSA by wording The Manual in a way that is contrary to the TSA - especially when an issuing error has occurred

“Excess Fare” means a variation in the Rights and Restrictions applicable to a Fare which has the impact of converting that Fare into another Fare”

So, we would have converted the fare into a South Bermondsey fare. I rest my case!

 

[34D]

I saw a similar thing the other day. I sold a gent a ticket from Brookmans Park to London Terminals.

It printed as Brookmans Park - London Thameslink despite not specifying it.

There is no competition on that route but I did wander..

This is also worrying. Brookmans Park (on the ECML, north of Potters Bar) has validity into Old Street/Moorgate in addition to Kings Cross.

Whilst it is good for passengers to have validity to Farringdon/Blackfriars, this should not be at the expense of established routes.

 

[OwlMan]

So, we would have converted the fare into a South Bermondsey fare. I rest my case!

It does not say to which fare it is converted just to another fare.


Also from The TSA

4) Excess Fares
(a) An Operator may Sell any Excess Fare that gives the Purchaser of it the
rights described in paragraph (b) below and those rights are the same as the rights that
arise under a Permanent Fare or a Temporary Fare which that Operator is entitled
to Sell. However, before it does so it must take reasonable steps to ensure that the
Purchaser already holds a valid Fare for the same Flow or (in the case of an Excess
Fare which falls within paragraph (b)(v) below) part of that Flow.
(b) An Excess Fare may only be Sold if it entitles the Purchaser of it to:-
(i) travel via a different route than the one he would otherwise be
entitled to use;
(ii) travel at a different time or on a different day than he would
otherwise be entitled to travel;
(iii) terminate or break and resume his journey at a Station at which he
would not otherwise be entitled to do this;
(iv) use a better class of accommodation;
(v) travel beyond the Station to which the Fare he holds entitles him to
travel, but only where he was unable to buy a Fare that entitles him to make
such a journey at the Station where and at the time when he started his
journey; or
(vi) start his journey at a Station that is on the Permitted Route for the
Flow that he is entitled to use, where he would not otherwise be entitled to
do this.

This makes it quite clear that an excess fare is only available in certain circumstances and appears to agree with the instructions in "The manual"

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So... what should the clerk have done? Surely the answer is not allow the passenger to walk away knowing that he is going to attempt to use 'a fare which does not appear in the fares manual'?

How fascinating.

Luton Bus MK fares don't appear in the Manual, but they are in the fares data and can be sold. I'm sure there are more that don't appear at all and I know that some fares have some (fairly minor) information in The Manual, but no fares are mentioned, for example Manchester Metrolink destinations.

By the rules? Tbh, I don't think the clerk has a 'passenger friendly' option.

1) Take the old ticket in for refund (or advise the passenger to claim one if this is not possible) and sell a new appropriate ticket for the journey actually being made.

2) Sell a new ticket for the part of the journey that is not covered by the existing ticket (taking into account NRCoC Condition 19.

The former may be the cheapest option in the long run, but given the passenger probably told the online journey planner what the journey was, there may be an admin fee to pay.

 

[Haywain]

Luton Bus MK fares don't appear in the Manual, but they are in the fares data and can be sold. I'm sure there are more that don't appear at all and I know that some fares have some (fairly minor) information in The Manual, but no fares are mentioned, for example Manchester Metrolink destinations.

Luton Bus MK fares are in The Manual - you just have to remember that the bus is principally an Airport Link, and that's where you find the details.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The only mention of Luton Bus MK is under the entry for Luton Airport Bus MK where it mentions that only Luton Bus MK and Luton Airport Bus MK are valid on the bus, no mention of fares for Luton Bus MK or where further details can be obtained.

 

[Starmill]

Oh. Well if we are simply talking 'The Manual' here, then it states: 'Fares are as shown in your TIS' - with regards to Metrolink tickets at least and it is followed by an exhaustive list of destinations. Does that not count?