London not Und

[LexyBoy]

The ticket is priced by SWT and my route validity checker shows only Waterloo/Waterloo East as a valid route. I specified Paddington as a via point and it was rejected.

... Because it can't find a route via Paddington which doesn't use the Underground. Walking seems to be allowed by the text posted by island, although JP doesn't know about it. There doesn't seem to be a restriction on the route though, only that the ticket doesn't cover the Underground fare.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Perhaps the route validity checker is using some information that is not publicly available about pairs of stations between which walking is allowed as part of a permitted route? If it's not publicly available, from what other people have said on this site then I understand it can't be enforced though.

 

[Flamingo]

Just seen this. I would read that ticket as being valid on the "Waterloo" line only, not on a HST to London, and excess up (not PF or new ticket) accordingly. (Slower stopping services are not my concern!). The "I have an oyster card" is a bit of a red herring, as the oyster card will not be used for this journey, so no money is being take off it.

If the passenger refused this, then I would involve Revenue at London or issue a UPFN (which gives the passenger 10 days to contact FGW and put their arguments) and allow someone who has got the time, resources, and inclination to leaf through the fare and routing manuals and come up with a textbook answer that would satisfy the passenger that they were not being overcharged and the ticket is not valid for Reading to Paddington.

 

[dzug2]

I would imagine this fare will be available Ealing Broadway - Kensington Olympia - Clapham Junction when that service finally gets off the ground

 

[yorkie]

Just seen this. I would read that ticket as being valid on the "waterloo" line only, not on a HST to London, and excess up (not PF or new ticket) accordingly.

And I would counter that with:

"Route of ticket LONDON NOT UND - You must travel via London. Transfer between London Stations is available on the Docklands Light Railway and First Capital Connect (Thameslink Route) or by foot. Travel is not available on London Underground. This fare is only valid on trains travelling between certain times."

If the passenger refused this, then I would involve Revenue at London

I'd just re-quote that to them, and if they called BTP, then BTP are likely to accept the quote above (I say that based, not on personal experience but people telling me about their personal experiences).

or issue a UPFN (which gives the passenger 10 days to contact FGW and put their arguments) and allow someone who has got the time, resources, and inclination to leaf through the fare and routing manuals and come up with a textbook answer that would satisfy the passenger that they were not being overcharged and the ticket is not valid for Reading to Paddington.

A UPFN would not be something I'd be likely to comply with given that I'd be having to give out my address (confidential info, I shouldn't have to give that out unless I do not have a ticket or am invalid, but I would be valid) and agreeing to having been invalid (which I wouldn't be). So I'd be asking to take it as high up as possible, and would refuse to let the matter lie. If I was delayed significantly I would want compensation and I would take up the matter through the relevant channels including contacting Passenger Focus, Barry Doe, etc until I won. Which I would!

 

[Flamingo]

I've been asked what would I do, we've been down this road before, I remember.

Refusing to give your address is a bylaw offence, by the way!

Also, the UPFN does say something like "If you wish to dispute your liability to pay, etc" which I would say covers this.

The operative bit of my post is the "I would get someone with time and resources etc". If a ticket says "Not London" on it, then my interpretation of it is Not Paddington, as Paddington is a London Terminus. I don't think this is unreasonable.

I'll ask a ticket guru next time I see the chap I'm thinking of, but what I've said is probably what would happen if that ticket was presented to any FGW guard (assuming you get one of the few who does tickets between Reading and Paddington on a HST - I do "emoticon of smug look").

 

[Mojo]

The operative bit of my post is the "I would get someone with time and resources etc". If a ticket says "Not London" on it, then my interpretation of it is Not Paddington, as Paddington is a London Terminus. I don't think this is unreasonable.

But it doesn't say Not London. It says London Not Underground.

 

[bnm]

Removed.

Same response as Mojo!

 

[island]

The ticket is routed "LONDON NOT UND", not "NOT LONDON".

Mrs. Island will be trying this on Saturday morning. I have discussed it with her and she is happy to try it out (in fact she has no option but to get the LONDON NOT UND ticket, as the +ANY PERMITTED isn't valid in the evening peak tomorrow which is when she will be travelling), but if she is challenged she will pay the excess if asked (which would appear to be £2.15, as the LONDON NOT UND ticket is £18.10 and +ANY PERMITTED is £22.45). She is not willing to be guinea-pig enough to ask for a UPFN.

I will be travelling with her but because of my travelcard will be on a BOUNDARY ZONE 3 to READING STATIONS ticket, routed ASCOT with a zero fare excess on the return to route SLOUGH (as for some reason the SWT fare is more expensive than the FGW one on this flow :roll, therefore I will not be in a position to take a stand on it.

Wonder what will happen when I go to Waterloo and ask for "an off-peak return from boundary zone 3 to Reading stations, route Ascot, with an excess on the return leg to route Slough, and a gold card discount"!

 

[b0b]

From the National Routeing Guide:

If there is a route “LONDON” as one of the permitted routes in the Routeing Guide,
the range of permitted routes via London is discovered by the following method:
1. Look up the permitted routes from the origin routeing point to London.
2. Look up the permitted routes from London to the destination routeing point.
3. Work out the range of permitted routes for the whole journey by combining any
route found in (1) with any route found in (2). All possible combinations are
permitted routes for the journey except those with a repeated map.

There can't be any doubt that Reading to London Paddington is a Permitted Route from Reading to London Group.

 

[Flamingo]

But it doesn't say Not London. It says London Not Underground.

OK, I misread it (I'm having eye trouble today, squinting at the screen, I shouldn't really be on here), I'd probably look twice at it. Then think that LU is not my problem.

I will ask a ticket guru next week, if I see him.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I would imagine this fare will be available Ealing Broadway - Kensington Olympia - Clapham Junction when that service finally gets off the ground

That would be valid if the ticket was routed "NOT LONDON", but as Mojo pointed out, it isn't! Journeys on this ticket must go via London terminals. Although you could probably go this way and then head in from Clapham Junction to Waterloo, then walk to Waterloo East and head back out towards Hither Green - that would be OK.

 

[Flamingo]

Wonder what will happen when I go to Waterloo and ask for "an off-peak return from boundary zone 3 to Reading stations, route Ascot, with an excess on the return leg to route Slough, and a gold card discount"!

Probably say "Sorry, it's my break, can you go to the next window"

 

[yorkie]

OK, I misread it (I'm having eye trouble today, squinting at the screen, I shouldn't really be on here), I'd probably look twice at it. Then think that LU is not my problem.

No worries, I had hoped that would be the explanation!

(Not the eye trouble of course, but the misreading! Hope your eyes get better soon!)

I will ask a ticket guru next week, if I see him.

I think it's pretty clear that it is allowed to transfer between London termini "by foot*", if any ticket gurus think otherwise, they'd need to contact ATOC.

* I'd also argue that if someone was doing the journey "by foot" all the railway really means is that it's up to you to sort it out, so if you decide to take a taxi, a bus, or use Oyster then that's fine but at the customers' expense. I don't think it literally means that the passenger must walk the whole way as that would be unenforceable. Pretty sure they're not intending to stop people cycling either. They're just trying to keep it simple, I guess.

 

[Flamingo]

Just going to see what the Revenue Manager says, he's an approachable guy, and I do like to keep him on his toes!

Sorry for causing confusion!

And if the rules say by foot, you are not allowed buy the ticket if you are in a wheelchair

 

[yorkie]

Just going to see what the Revenue Manager says, he's an approachable guy, and I do like to keep him on his toes!

Sorry for causing confusion!

And if the rules say by foot, you are not allowed buy the ticket if you are in a wheelchair

I can imagine potential lawsuits being filed...!

Does the Revenue Manager do meet the customers sessions? Could be interesting to see if we can test his knowledge to the limit!

(wouldn't surprise me if revenue managers for some TOCs read this forum actually!)

 

[Flamingo]

I can imagine potential lawsuits being filed...!

Does the Revenue Manager do meet the customers sessions? Could be interesting to see if we can test his knowledge to the limit!

(wouldn't surprise me if revenue managers for some TOCs read this forum actually!)

I'll ask him. He's the sort that might, he's a good chap. Has a sense of humour, but nearly as suspicious and cynical as me! edited to add: I'm sorry, I say that like it's a bad thing!

 

[bnm]

I'll ask him. He's the sort that might, he's a good chap. Has a sense of humour, but nearly as suspicious and cynical as me! edited to add: I'm sorry, I say that like it's a bad thing!

If its the same guy I've had correspondence with at FGW Towers in Swindon then I'll concur that he is a good chap. Even if he did once tell me something I didn't want to hear!

 

[clagmonster]

I will be travelling with her but because of my travelcard will be on a BOUNDARY ZONE 3 to READING STATIONS ticket, routed ASCOT with a zero fare excess on the return to route SLOUGH (as for some reason the SWT fare is more expensive than the FGW one on this flow :roll, therefore I will not be in a position to take a stand on it.

Wonder what will happen when I go to Waterloo and ask for "an off-peak return from boundary zone 3 to Reading stations, route Ascot, with an excess on the return leg to route Slough, and a gold card discount"!

An alternate route excess on one portion of a return is half the difference in price between the two tickets. Therefore, in this case as the route Ascot ticket is more expensive, it would be cheaper to buy a route Slough ticket and excess the outward portion to go via Ascot.

 

[island]

Are you allowed to do that? My understanding was it has to be done on the return leg. Also I believe the route SLOUGH ticket has evening peak restrictions.

 

[clagmonster]

You can excess either or both portions, the extract from the manual was posted on the forum a couple of weeks back. I believe that when you excess the ticket, whichever way you do it, the portion excessed takes on the restrictions of the new ticket. Someone else may be able to confirm this.

 

[RJ]

Wonder what will happen when I go to Waterloo and ask for "an off-peak return from boundary zone 3 to Reading stations, route Ascot, with an excess on the return leg to route Slough, and a gold card discount"!

SVR BZ3 - RDG via Ascot - £15.45
SVR BZ3 - RDG via Slough - £14.85

I would sell a you a SVR via Slough with a 30p excess via Ascot for the outward journey.

You can excess either or both portions, the extract from the manual was posted on the forum a couple of weeks back. I believe that when you excess the ticket, whichever way you do it, the portion excessed takes on the restrictions of the new ticket. Someone else may be able to confirm this.

The idea is that the excess fare should be the cheapest which covers all of the customer's requirements. In this specific case it's irrelevant as the outward would have to be at or after 10:00 when there's no restriction for those flows and there's no restriction for the return portion between Reading and BZ3.

 

[island]

Well, it didn't go exactly to plan. The ticket clerk said I would have to get two single tickets with the different routings, and refused to entertain my request for the return*+ excess, even cutting me off with a testy "I know what I'm doing". I even asked a roaming queuebuster guy with an Avantix afterwards whether he thought the ticket was right but he said I needed to go back to the travel centre and get a supervisor, which would have caused me to miss my train. (Can't really blame him on this; standard practice in service industry should be not to contradict a co-worker unless you have spoken to them first and got their side of the story.)

So the net result is

• a route Ascot SVR from BZ3 to Reading Stations which means I got charged 30p more than [what I think is] the right fare
• a likely uphill battle at Reading tomorrow to get a £0.00 excess to route Slough, or I may just jump on the FGW and do it on board in the unlikely event I find a guard
• an annoyed letter going off to SWT early next week. I have the names of all the staff concerned, and they were all wearing SWT uniform and name-badges.

This isn't about the 30p difference, before anyone pipes up; it's about impartial (and competent) selling, with a side order of manners.

And to top it off, my ticket was rejected at Reading with seek assistance code 107, whatever that may be.

Round 2 is tomorrow when Mrs. island tries the original LONDON NOT UND.

I feel a bit better now for writing that; Mrs. island is entirely unsympathetic with me about esoteric train tickets!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FGW ticket clerk at RDG was happy to issue me a £0.00 excess to route SLOUGH on my ticket. And Mrs. Island had her ticket passed without incident by the gate at PAD. Will advise later if she has any problems at CHX (she's gone off shopping )

Has anyone the name of a customer service manager in SWT or a good address to write to? (I assume it's SWT even through WAT is operated by NR, as it was all SWT staff I dealt with yesterday.) Otherwise I'll just send it to the address on their website.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Mrs. Island's ticket worked in the gates at CHX too.

 

[MikeWh]

And Mrs. Island had her ticket passed without incident by the gate at PAD. Will advise later if she has any problems at CHX (she's gone off shopping )
Mrs. Island's ticket worked in the gates at CHX too.

Pleased something worked out how it should.

 

[island]

Yeah. Pity about the SWT clerks.

 

[island]

I got a vaguely worded non-apology from SWT today saying "sorry that you felt so strongly as to write to us", "a copy of your correspondence has been given to the manager of the staff member involved", and "for reasons of employee confidentiality, we are unable to advise on the action taken".

All this means is that I shall be buying any tickets that I cannot buy online, besides the most simple and straightforward ones, from SET at Cannon Street, who have proved exceedingly capable of issuing any ticket I have asked for to date.

 

[penaltyfines]

As long as you can prove what happened (camera phone!), if they refuse to sell a ticket, class it as 'ticket issuing facilities unavailable' and jump aboard!

 

[island]

Thinking over what happened I should have bought the cheaper route and excessed onboard or at Reading, but I wasn't sure at the time whether one could excess the outbound half of a return.