Leave train early on an advance ticket?

[JonathanH]

It nonetheless underlines the Alice-in-Wonderland bizarreness of the British ticketing system that a ticket from A to B via a particular route is not valid for every intermediate point on that route.

Does it? Surely it demonstrates the flexibility of the British ticketing system.

It would be fairly easy to envisage a (simple) ticketing system where you absolutely have to make the journey that you purchase - ie no stopping short or starting late. It is fortunate that we generally have the flexibility to do those things.

 

[Silenos]

Does it? Surely it demonstrates the flexibility of the British ticketing system.

I disagree. Logically, if your ticket entitles you to travel on a line between two points, then for any given point on the line, the ticket must entitle you to be there.

And given the Byzantine complexities of the ticketing system here, to describe it as flexible seems somewhat strange. Simple physics dictates that it must always involve more work to move a distance x than a distance x+y, so to charge more to travel x than x+y is at best perverse, and at worst sharp practice.

It would be fairly easy to envisage a (simple) ticketing system where you absolutely have to make the journey that you purchase - ie no stopping short or starting late. It is fortunate that we generally have the flexibility to do those things.

One can fairly easily envisage a system in which you are immediately locked up for having the wrong ticket, too, but to justify a silly system by saying it could be worse is a poor argument

 

[talldave]

If the savings on the advance are significant, then a single between "early stop" and "station before early stop" surely provides a means to exit hassle free?

 

[Sonic1234]

I disagree. Logically, if your ticket entitles you to travel on a line between two points, then for any given point on the line, the ticket must entitle you to be there.

I very much imagine the man on the street would agree. Advance tickets should be for a specific train but if you decide to forego part of your journey, that should be your choice. Obviously you couldn't break and resume a journey because you would have then let the booked train go.

I sometimes have this issue when seeing family who suggest I could get off a stop early - they are astounded that my answer of "but I have an Advance ticket" would prevent this.

 

[JonathanH]

I very much imagine the man on the street would agree. Advance tickets should be for a specific train but if you decide to forego part of your journey, that should be your choice.

It remains your choice to get off earlier.

You effectively just have to pay 'an excess' if doing it at a station where you couldn't have bought a ticket at that price in the first place.

By buying the excess you gave up some flexibility, one part of which is the ability to stop short.

 

[Starmill]

And given the Byzantine complexities of the ticketing system here, to describe it as flexible seems somewhat strange. Simple physics dictates that it must always involve more work to move a distance x than a distance x+y, so to charge more to travel x than x+y is at best perverse, and at worst sharp practice.

There's nothing more than a tenuous link between the cost of providing the service and the price for using it, though. Is that whole concept "perverse" to you? The whole economy is base on that idea pretty much.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Simple physics dictates that it must always involve more work to move a distance x than a distance x+y, so to charge more to travel x than x+y is at best perverse, and at worst sharp practice.

Not sure if that necessarily follows. If, for example, x = 50 and y = 25, then surely more work is involved to move a distance of 50 + 25 miles, than to move just the 50?

 

[Deerfold]

Not sure if that necessarily follows. If, for example, x = 50 and y = 25, then surely more work is involved to move a distance of 50 + 25 miles, than to move just the 50?

I think they got the first part of their example the wrong way round.

 

[Starmill]

I very much imagine the man on the street would agree. Advance tickets should be for a specific train but if you decide to forego part of your journey, that should be your choice. Obviously you couldn't break and resume a journey because you would have then let the booked train go.

It's commonplace, to take a random example of market pricing, for 500ml bottles of diet coke to cost more than 1.5l ones. Sometimes, the smaller bottle will be double the price. Are you saying you're fine with that, but you think that selling a cheaper ticket for a longer journey shouldn't be permitted? Now you could argue the smaller bottle is worthy of a higher price because people value convenience of something easy to carry, so they're more popular than larger bottles. And the train companies could equally argue they want to charge more for a shorter but more popular journey.

Chiltern Railways services from London are currently more popular with people going to Bicester Village than they are with people going to Oxford Parkway. Therefore, it's commonplace for a ticket from London to Bicester Village to cost more than one to Oxford Parkway, despite that being a shorter journey on the same train. If someone really thought that were unfair, they could buy the cheaper ticket, go on the train to Oxford Parkway, and get the bus back to Bicester Village. Same as, how they could easily buy the 1.5 litre bottle of Diet Coke and pour 2/3 of it on the floor. Are you saying that needs to be restricted? Is that really unfair trading? If this type of pricing become unlawful, how do you think the relative prices would change?

 

[island]

It nonetheless underlines the Alice-in-Wonderland bizarreness of the British ticketing system that a ticket from A to B via a particular route is not valid for every intermediate point on that route.

I disagree. Logically, if your ticket entitles you to travel on a line between two points, then for any given point on the line, the ticket must entitle you to be there.

That does not follow. An advance ticket from A to C does not entitle you to travel from A to B, merely because B happens to be on the way. They are different services and may have different costs, due to relative demand. If you wish to have the flexibility of alighting partway along the journey, more expensive tickets with break of journey privileges are available.

Similar principles apply in aviation where "hidden city ticketing" comes into play; Lufthansa and other airlines have won several legal cases on the subject.

It's commonplace, to take a random example of market pricing, for 500ml bottles of diet coke to cost more than 1.5l ones.

I'm sure I started the Diet Coke analogy though the way I express it is that you cannot purchase a 2L bottle then go back to the shelves, set down the 2L bottle, rip open a 6-pack of 330ml cans, leave one can behind and walk out with the five.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm sure I started the Diet Coke analogy though the way I express it is that you cannot purchase a 2L bottle then go back to the shelves, set down the 2L bottle, rip open a 6-pack of 330ml cans, leave one can behind and walk out with the five.

But we could simply sell all Diet Coke at xPence per/L, directly from a tap. Problem solved.

 

[xotGD]

They are different services

How can they be different services? You are occupying the same seat on the same train. Indeed, by getting off at an earlier stop, you free up the seat for someone else to use.

 

[Starmill]

How can they be different services? You are occupying the same seat on the same train. Indeed, by getting off at an earlier stop, you free up the seat for someone else to use.

Because more people want to make some journeys than others.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2023 ==

But we could simply sell all Diet Coke at xPence per/L, directly from a tap. Problem solved.

Indeed we could. But we'd immediately run into a problem there too, namely what's the unit price going to be, and more importantly who has the right to set it? In the current market the unit price varies by a factor of around 5 from the places where it's the cheapest to the places where it's most expensive, so we're going to cause enormous price changes somewhere regardless of what price we set.

 

[xotGD]

Because more people want to make some journeys than others.

But If I have an Advance from A to C rather than A to B, it still occupies a seat between A and B. The fact that I have a ticket to C does not magic up an extra seat for an additional A to B ticket to be sold. However, as I said above, by getting off early at B I would allow a B to C passenger to take that seat.

 

[Starmill]

But If I have an Advance from A to C rather than A to B, it still occupies a seat between A and B. The fact that I have a ticket to C does not magic up an extra seat for an additional A to B ticket to be sold. However, as I said above, by getting off early at B I would allow a B to C passenger to take that seat.

Did you read posts #36, #39 and #40? They pointed out that, in a free market economy such as the one we're talking about, how much it costs to supply a good or service isn't the primary determinant of its price. Do you accept that point at least? If you do, what do you say to the questions posed at the end of #39, please?

 

[xotGD]

Did you read posts #36, #39 and #40? They pointed out that, in a free market economy such as the one we're talking about, how much it costs to supply a good or service isn't the primary determinant of its price. Do you accept that point at least? If you do, what do you say to the questions posed at the end of #39, please?

The analogies don't work. It is the same product. It is the same seat. On the same train. Selling it to an A-C passenger prevents an A-B passenger taking the seat. The A-B seat is then being sold for less to someone who also wishes to use it for B-C.

The railway loses money by selling the same seat to an A-C passenger for less than an A-B passenger would have to pay. Removing the fare anomaly would eliminate this, and would also remove the desire of A-B passengers to buy an A-C ticket and bale at B.

 

[Starmill]

The analogies don't work.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was explaining a principle, which was that prices are determined according to the demand for a good or service relatively to its supply, in a free market economy. I would like to know if that's a principle which you accept or not. If you do accept it, do you think it should apply to state-subsidised transport services?

It is the same product. It is the same seat. On the same train. Selling it to an A-C passenger prevents an A-B passenger taking the seat. The A-B seat is then being sold for less to someone who also wishes to use it for B-C.

It's not the same product, by definition. The stations in question are different. How can the service be the same going to two different places? If it were so, the train operator would have the right under the contract to send you to a different station from the one you nominated when you bought your ticket, and you'd have no recourse. Are you saying they do?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2023 ==

The railway loses money by selling the same seat to an A-C passenger for less than an A-B passenger would have to pay.

This isn't correct. Please see #39. Chiltern Railways are making more money by charging people going from London to Bicester Village more than London to Oxford Parkway, on the same train.

Removing the fare anomaly would eliminate this, and would also remove the desire of A-B passengers to buy an A-C ticket and bale at B.

So, in your view, Chiltern Railways should be restricted in law from charging more for London to Bicester Village than London to Oxford Parkway? A yes or no will do.

 

[xotGD]

So, in your view, Chiltern Railways should be restricted in law from charging more for London to Bicester Village than London to Oxford Parkway? A yes or no will do.

If you want a yes or no answer, I will say yes. They are offering the same seat, on the same train, to two stations, one a bit further than the other. The idea that by traveling further you should pay less for the same seat on the same train is ridiculous.

 

[Starmill]

If you want a yes or no answer, I will say yes. They are offering the same seat, on the same train, to two stations, one a bit further than the other. The idea that by traveling further you should pay less for the same seat on the same train is ridiculous.

Now we're getting somewhere. Can you tell me what you think would happen to the price of London to Oxford Parkway tickets in your proposed scenario as compared to the price without your new restrictions?

 

[Mikw]

Silly rule for me. If i get off at an earlier station i feel as i've paid for this.
Makes the railways look really stupid when they fine someone for getting off early
I mean if i had a call from a sick relative to come quickly so i got off at an earlier station that's closer to them i'd risk punishment which just can't be right.
Although i see that guidance has now been issued to mean it's unlikely to end in punishment i'd still think twice.

 

[Starmill]

Silly rule for me. If i get off at an earlier station i feel as i've paid for this.
Makes the railways look really stupid when they fine someone for getting off early
I mean if i had a call from a sick relative to come quickly so i got off at an earlier station that's closer to them i'd risk punishment which just can't be right.
Although i see that guidance has now been issued to mean it's unlikely to end in punishment i'd still think twice.

Generally a Penalty Fare couldn't be charged, just any difference in fares to a flexible ticket. If you weren't doing it to avoid paying a higher fare you also couldn't face prosecution.

 

[Hadders]

Just to remind everyone that although starting/finishing short with an Advance ticket is not strictly in accordance with the rules for Advance tickets, the policy of the Rail industry is that no additional fare should be charged (unless there is clear evidence of intent to try and avoid a higher fare).

 

[melevittfl]

I'm sure I started the Diet Coke analogy though the way I express it is that you cannot purchase a 2L bottle then go back to the shelves, set down the 2L bottle, rip open a 6-pack of 330ml cans, leave one can behind and walk out with the five.

I think, from the perspective of the average rail customer, the analogy would be that you purchase the 2L bottle. You start drinking it, then decide after drinking all but 500ml you’re drinking too much sugary drink.

When you go to throw the remainder away, the company demands you pay the difference between the 2L bottle you bought and the 500ml bottle x3.

Leaving aside the practicality of detecting the situation, to most people, that’s what buying a train ticket means. I.e, you’re purchasing a ticket that covers a line between two points. So, anywhere along that line is a valid stop.

 

[Deerfold]

The analogies don't work. It is the same product. It is the same seat. On the same train. Selling it to an A-C passenger prevents an A-B passenger taking the seat. The A-B seat is then being sold for less to someone who also wishes to use it for B-C.

Surely this is only true if the train is completely full?

The railway loses money by selling the same seat to an A-C passenger for less than an A-B passenger would have to pay. Removing the fare anomaly would eliminate this, and would also remove the desire of A-B passengers to buy an A-C ticket and bale at B.

So the person travelling A-C should have to pay more?

 

[Starmill]

Leaving aside the practicality of detecting the situation, to most people, that’s what buying a train ticket means. I.e, you’re purchasing a ticket that covers a line between two points. So, anywhere along that line is a valid stop.

Whether you like it or not, it's already commonplace for airlines, coach companies and rail operators to charge more for a journey that's a subset of a cheaper journey. If you think that's unconscionable, I'd invite you to reconsider the whole basis of your earning and spending in a modern free-market Western economy.

It's a valid argument to make that the entire basis of capitalist economies is fundamentally flawed and unfair - other systems exist, with their own advantages and disadvantages. It's also a valid argument to make that regulation should restrict this practice or make it unlawful. But as several people are trying to point out, that means, from the perspective of the consumer, price rises, and from the perspective of the firm, less effective yield management, leading overall to lower revenue. Likely you'd also find it leads to lower output i.e. fewer seat km occupied. You can of course argue for price controls. Indeed, for nearly all local transport services, I would. But you have to accept that this means either a commensurate cut in supply, or a public subsidy.

What you and @xotGD are doing above though is not admitting to this. You're taking a complex problem and implying it has a simple answer, when it doesn't.

 

[island]

But we could simply sell all Diet Coke at xPence per/L, directly from a tap. Problem solved.

But we don't.

I think, from the perspective of the average rail customer, the analogy would be that you purchase the 2L bottle. You start drinking it, then decide after drinking all but 500ml you’re drinking too much sugary drink.

When you go to throw the remainder away, the company demands you pay the difference between the 2L bottle you bought and the 500ml bottle x3.

Leaving aside the practicality of detecting the situation, to most people, that’s what buying a train ticket means. I.e, you’re purchasing a ticket that covers a line between two points. So, anywhere along that line is a valid stop.

Your analogy is an anytime ticket.

 

[melevittfl]

Whether you like it or not, it's already commonplace for airlines, coach companies and rail operators to charge more for a journey that's a subset of a cheaper journey. If you think that's unconscionable, I'd invite you to reconsider the whole basis of your earning and spending in a modern free-market Western economy.

Certainly airlines sell tickets for routes A -> B -> C where the A -> C ticket is cheaper than the A ->B ticket for the same flight. People have dicovered this and take advantage when they only want to go to B. It's against the airlines Ts and Cs, but it's not illegal and multiple airlines (Lufthansa and Southwest) have lost court cases trying to sue passengers who've done it.

The airlines can refuse to sell you a ticket in the future, or cancel your loyatly points, etc. But they cannot have you charged with a criminal offence as the railways can.

It's a valid argument to make that the entire basis of capitalist economies is fundamentally flawed and unfair - other systems exist, with their own

First, I am not making that argument. In my message, I mearly pointed out that the vast majority of rail passengers would not assume that getting off the train at an earlier stop was doing anything wrong. Even buying an advance ticket, they would assume the restrictions where around which train they could take, not which station they could alight from (as long as they got on the train they selected and didn't travel further than they tickets station).

Second, having said that, I do think it's the current situation that is actually anti-capitalist (at least in strict free-market sense). That is, the railways are private companies. Why should they be allowed to prosecute directly and land people with a criminal record? Surely, in a capitalist economy, their options should be limited to a civil action for breach of contract and/or refusing to sell you a future ticket.

The fact that the railway enjoys government support where violations of their ticket rules (which even their staff often don't understand) can lead to criminal prosecution means that they are not operating stricly in a free-market capacity.

You're taking a complex problem and implying it has a simple answer, when it doesn't.

I don't think there is a simple answer, but I do think the railways have a) byzantine ticket rules that the average person could not reasonably be expected to fully understand and b) too much power to enforce those rules as criminal laws.

The railways want to use pricing strategies that maximise their profit. Fine, but I do think they need to make it much clearer at the point of sale (i.e., not buried in Ts and Cs, not with an obscure code that only railway enthusiest would undertand), what the restrictions are. And, if they do find people working around their pricing, then they can refuse to do business with them or file a civil suit against them. But they should not be allowed to treat it as a criminal matter in the same way as not buying a ticket at all or buying a ticket for a station earlier on the route and travelling past that station would be.

 

[Starmill]

Certainly airlines sell tickets for routes A -> B -> C where the A -> C ticket is cheaper than the A ->B ticket for the same flight. People have dicovered this and take advantage when they only want to go to B. It's against the airlines Ts and Cs, but it's not illegal and multiple airlines (Lufthansa and Southwest) have lost court cases trying to sue passengers who've done it.

The airlines can refuse to sell you a ticket in the future, or cancel your loyatly points, etc. But they cannot have you charged with a criminal offence as the railways can.

It's a hypothetical whether you could be prosecuted for trying to avoid the payment of the correct fare if you had paid more than the correct fare. If you had underpaid then yes of course you could, which is why the conditions prohibit this. Seems sensible to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

In my message, I mearly pointed out that the vast majority of rail passengers would not assume that getting off the train at an earlier stop was doing anything wrong. Even buying an advance ticket, they would assume the restrictions where around which train they could take, not which station they could alight from (as long as they got on the train they selected and didn't travel further than they tickets station).

People assume lots of things and they often assume wrongly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

Second, having said that, I do think it's the current situation that is actually anti-capitalist (at least in strict free-market sense). That is, the railways are private companies. Why should they be allowed to prosecute directly and land people with a criminal record? Surely, in a capitalist economy, their options should be limited to a civil action for breach of contract and/or refusing to sell you a future ticket.

I agree with that but only if it's market-wide. The current offences should indeed go, but for all cases not just their possible application in this area, so that's not really a debate about Advance tickets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

The fact that the railway enjoys government support where violations of their ticket rules (which even their staff often don't understand) can lead to criminal prosecution means that they are not operating stricly in a free-market capacity.

A free-market economy doesn't mean a completely unregulated one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

I don't think there is a simple answer, but I do think the railways have a) byzantine ticket rules that the average person could not reasonably be expected to fully understand and b) too much power to enforce those rules as criminal laws.

I'm not sure anyone could disagree with that but that's got nothing to do with the point at hand.

 

[156421]

Let's not forget that some advance tickets require you to change trains, so we have the situation where theoretically people are imprisoned at the "change" station even if stuck there for >1 hour.

 

[Starmill]

Let's not forget that some advance tickets require you to change trains, so we have the situation where theoretically people are imprisoned at the "change" station even if stuck there for >1 hour.

Indeed so. However in practice you would be allowed to leave on a verbal assurance that you would be returning to catch your booked service.