London Underground Zone 1 --> Cambridge can no longer be booked

[thedbdiboy]

Perhaps you can explain what this means a little bit more? For those of us who clearly don't have access to the in-joke going on here

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==


Perhaps you could share the fact of why precisely the old rules were a problem in that case?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

Until such time as GBR is legally incorporated and takes over fares, each 'flow' is legally assigned to a TOC. This includes managing any associated add-ons.
In BR days, limits on computing power and the fact the BR controlled fares meant that most add-ons were calculated to a formula, which was applied in most cases at the retail end - often by a booking clerk manually calculating the price.
TOCs had (and have) a certain degree of freedom to choose how they want to price these fares. Some were happy to leave the formula in place whilst others wanted to price the add-on differently, something they are free to do and which the current fares system can accommodate. However it became apparent that some retailers were ignoring the 'priced' fare where this was higher selling tickets based on the formula instead. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the current fares structure, this was an issue for those TOCs who were faced with certain retailers over-riding their intended fares.
Therefore, under direction through the industry governance process, the right for retailers to use the formula was removed and it was made clear to TOCs that where they wish to offer these fares, they need to price them in the system. For the avoidance of doubt, the governance process is based on TOC votes, with the voting nowadays subject to DfT approval. The one party that has no legal right to overrule the decision making process is RDG which is why I challenge statements such as 'RDG has decided....'

 

[Starmill]

Until such time as GBR is legally incorporated and takes over fares, each 'flow' is legally assigned to a TOC. This includes managing any associated add-ons.
In BR days, limits on computing power and the fact the BR controlled fares meant that most add-ons were calculated to a formula, which was applied in most cases at the retail end - often by a booking clerk manually calculating the price.
TOCs had (and have) a certain degree of freedom to choose how they want to price these fares. Some were happy to leave the formula in place whilst others wanted to price the add-on differently, something they are free to do and which the current fares system can accommodate. However it became apparent that some retailers were ignoring the 'priced' fare where this was higher selling tickets based on the formula instead. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the current fares structure, this was an issue for those TOCs who were faced with certain retailers over-riding their intended fares.
Therefore, under direction through the industry governance process, the right for retailers to use the formula was removed and it was made clear to TOCs that where they wish to offer these fares, they need to price them in the system. For the avoidance of doubt, the governance process is based on TOC votes, with the voting nowadays subject to DfT approval. The one party that has no legal right to overrule the decision making process is RDG which is why I challenge statements such as 'RDG has decided....'

So for the avoidance of doubt, your view is that the accusation that it was motivated by a desire on one operator's part to show up an independent retailer is a false claim? That had nothing to do with it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

However it became apparent that some retailers were ignoring the 'priced' fare where this was higher selling tickets based on the formula instead.

This isn't my interpretation of what happened based on this thread though. What happened was both tickets were on sale specifically because if the cheaper one were deliberately hidden, that'd be unlawful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the current fares structure, this was an issue for those TOCs who were faced with certain retailers over-riding their intended fares.

Again, as both products were available for sale, I don't really understand how it's over-riding anything.

 

[Adam Williams]

However it became apparent that some retailers were ignoring the 'priced' fare where this was higher selling tickets based on the formula instead.

I find the narrative here a bit problematic, so here's my attempt:

"some retailers decided not to overcharge their customers, and considered both the formula-priced and TOC-priced fares, and used a fares engine that ultimately prioritised the one that was most beneficial to the customer and the most passenger-friendly to offer". I believe @Starmill is correct in suggesting that the TOC-priced through fares would've been available to a customer wishing to specifically purchase them instead of the formula-priced add-ons.

Nor am I now (or was I then) aware of anything in the specifications that prevented doing this at the time

 

[thedbdiboy]

I find the narrative here a bit problematic, so here's my attempt:

"some retailers decided not to overcharge their customers, and considered both the formula-priced and TOC-priced fares, and used a fares engine that ultimately prioritised the one that was most beneficial to the customer and the most passenger-friendly to offer". I believe @Starmill is correct in suggesting that the TOC-priced through fares would've been available to a customer wishing to specifically purchase them instead of the formula-priced add-ons.

Nor am I now (or was I then) aware of anything in the specifications that prevented doing this at the time

Indeed there wasn't anything explicitly in the specifications that prevented them doing this at the time. That's why the change was made.
It's no different to any other sort of loophole or anomaly - while it exists, it can be made use of. But if the TOC notices, efforts are likely to be made to address it.

 

[redreni]

Indeed there wasn't anything explicitly in the specifications that prevented them doing this at the time. That's why the change was made.
It's no different to any other sort of loophole or anomaly - while it exists, it can be made use of. But if the TOC notices, efforts are likely to be made to address it.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that where the TOC-priced fare is higher than the fare that follows the formula, the former is anomalous.

Where the TOC prices the U-zone fare higher than it would be if it were priced according to the formula, does that extra revenue go to TfL? Or is it trousered by the TOC? And what is that additional sum that the passenger has to pay over and above the fare to the interchange station plus the add-on for?

 

[thedbdiboy]

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that where the TOC-priced fare is higher than the fare that follows the formula, the former is anomalous.

Where the TOC prices the U-zone fare higher than it would be if it were priced according to the formula, does that extra revenue go to TfL? Or is it trousered by the TOC? And what is that additional sum that the passenger has to pay over and above the fare to the interchange station plus the add-on for?

No money is 'trousered' by any TOC any more. It all goes to the Government. There is (another) formula that covers the TfL outpayment but it's all public money. The point is, as things stand, the decider of the fare is the TOC, not the retailer. The process for setting and settling through fares between National Rail and LT is governed by the TfL-TOC Through Ticketing (non Travelcard) Agreement.

 

[OscarH]

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that where the TOC-priced fare is higher than the fare that follows the formula, the former is anomalous.

Gotta remember, anomalies are only anomalies if the TOC isn't the one benefitting.

It is a valid point that it's sadly within their gift to do, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous, and it doesn't mean they were fixing an anomaly instead of creating them

 

[redreni]

Gotta remember, anomalies are only anomalies if the TOC isn't the one benefitting.

It is a valid point that it's sadly within their gift to do, but it doesn't make it less ridiculous, and it doesn't mean they were fixing an anomaly instead of creating them

Yeah and I kind of think that in a well regulated system, the fare to the interchange station would be the fare to the interchange station (as set by whoever sets that fare, within any constraints imposed on them if it is a regulated fare) and the LU element is whatever is agreed between the TOCs and TfL, and the U-zone fare should be a product of those things. Because the only benefit the passenger gets if they by a ticket to a zone rather than to the interchange station is the ability to travel on LU and DLR services (and any interavailable NR services) and TfL sets the price for those, not the TOCs. It seems abusive to charge extra for this, beyond what the TOCs have to pay TfL.

Okay, if the TOCs price these tickets high enough, or just don't price them at all so that they're not available, the passenger just pays TfL separately for the TfL element so "may" not lose out financially , but that is an attack on integrated ticketing.

I also have zero confidence that if passengers making long-distance journeys via London don't have 'joined up tickets' because tickets to or from zone 1 aren't available, TOCs will not charge them for a new ticket if they miss their connection due to an earlier delay, on the (admittedly spurious) basis that "the tickets don't join up".

 

[thedbdiboy]

Now that legislation has been laid and Government has made clear that GBR will be the operator of rail services in England (and not just a contracting authority) it is reasonable to expect that things will in due course revert to a standardised approach. But as I pointed out above, there is a huge amount of practical and legislative work needed to reconstruct a functionally capable structure to manage things. Simply making things publicly owned doesn't sort the underlying issues out.
It was much easier to break BR up than to create its successor when the pieces lie in a million fragments on the floor.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Now that legislation has been laid and Government has made clear that GBR will be the operator of rail services in England (and not just a contracting authority) it is reasonable to expect that things will in due course revert to a standardised approach.

Legislation has not yet been laid to establish GBR. All that's happened so far is legislation transferring franchises to DfT Operator Ltd.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Legislation has not yet been laid to establish GBR. All that's happened so far is legislation transferring franchises to DfT Operator Ltd.

Yes, but that piece of legislation transferring TOCs to DFTO does make it a requirement that services are publicly run, so there is no more franchising or contracting - full stop. Therefore it is a given that the future management of fares will change from being managed in TOC silos. The next bit of legislation will concern the powers to be vested in GBR that currently sit within DfT/elsewhere, but fares - 'flow ownership' already sits with TOCs so that doesn't need to be devolved from DfT, and regulation is fares managed under the contracts rather than on any statutory basis.

 

[Paul Kelly]

some retailers were ignoring the 'priced' fare where this was higher selling tickets based on the formula instead

"some retailers decided not to overcharge their customers, and considered both the formula-priced and TOC-priced fares, and used a fares engine that ultimately prioritised the one that was most beneficial to the customer and the most passenger-friendly to offer"

I'm assuming this is correct as the same information has been posted by two sources, both of whom I'd consider reliable. I'm grateful for the clarification - to me it does not seem reasonable behaviour; my interpretation (which I implemented when programming some of this stuff in the FastJP journey planner, a good few years ago now) was always that zonal add-on fares should only be created if no fare existed in the fares database, i.e. more as a passenger-friendly means to enable a journey for which other journey planners would give a "computer says no" response, rather than to try to undercut deliberately-set TOC fares!

 

[Watershed]

I'm assuming this is correct as the same information has been posted by two sources, both of whom I'd consider reliable. I'm grateful for the clarification - to me it does not seem reasonable behaviour; my interpretation (which I implemented when programming some of this stuff in the FastJP journey planner, a good few years ago now) was always that zonal add-on fares should only be created if no fare existed in the fares database, i.e. more as a passenger-friendly means to enable a journey for which other journey planners would give a "computer says no" response, rather than to try to undercut deliberately-set TOC fares!

Given that cost of a fare to London Terminals (or whatever the interchange station is) is known, as is the cost of the zonal add-on, I think it is highly arguable that the TOCs were overcharging by setting combined fares that were more than the sum of the two. I can see no legitimate reason for doing so.

If the zonal add-ons were perceived as being too cheap, then the correct fix would have been to increase them. That would be understandable in some ways, since the add-ons undercut the PAYG fare in some circumstances (especially when Railcards entered the mix).

 

[Paul Kelly]

Both also reasonable suggestions, from the point of view of how TOCs or RDG might have better handled the situation.

My post was coming more from the point of view of a former journey planner developer - since journey planners are not formally subject to accreditation and there are many grey areas and ambiguities in how to interpret the "rules", a lot of pragmatism is needed to avoid rocking the boat too much - only offering zonal add-ons when no through fares existed would be an example of this (in my opinion ).

 

[Sonic1234]

No money is 'trousered' by any TOC any more. It all goes to the Government. There is (another) formula that covers the TfL outpayment but it's all public money.

But is this how it is seen by TOC management? TOC boards and managers most likely have targets to get money into their pot, even if it is just an accountancy tool within the DfT. Just like the manager of your local Tesco has a target for their store, it's a loss to them if you go and shop at another Tesco even though the same company benefits ultimately.

 

[Adam Williams]

Both also reasonable suggestions, from the point of view of how TOCs or RDG might have better handled the situation.

My post was coming more from the point of view of a former journey planner developer - since journey planners are not formally subject to accreditation and there are many grey areas and ambiguities in how to interpret the "rules", a lot of pragmatism is needed to avoid rocking the boat too much - only offering zonal add-ons when no through fares existed would be an example of this (in my opinion ).

As we've seen from another (very timely) thread, there are clearly some drawbacks with relying on the through fares that exist as defined by pricing managers.

It wasn't a change I was involved in, but I can see how considering both zonal addons and defined fares allows you to smooth over issues of this nature.

Given some of the strict adherences to the letter of the rules the fares engine makes in other areas, to the benefit of the passenger, I wouldn't describe this behaviour as particularly controversial, though clearly one TOC in particular had a problem with it and kicked up a fuss (their time would be better spent fixing their RCS data, in my view )

Prior to that, it had sometimes been queried, but pricing managers from other TOCs genuinely seemed happy with the explanation given of the behaviour at the time. I think the add-on rules were obscure enough that it was often driven by genuine curiosity as to how it worked rather than any particular concern of revenue loss.

 

[redreni]

Given that cost of a fare to London Terminals (or whatever the interchange station is) is known, as is the cost of the zonal add-on, I think it is highly arguable that the TOCs were overcharging by setting combined fares that were more than the sum of the two. I can see no legitimate reason for doing so.

If the zonal add-ons were perceived as being too cheap, then the correct fix would have been to increase them. That would be understandable in some ways, since the add-ons undercut the PAYG fare in some circumstances (especially when Railcards entered the mix).

I agree with your first paragraph.

Your second makes a reasonable point, but from the Railcard holder's perspective they were often choosing to buy a U-zone add-on that is priced higher than the relevant tube fare because it was the only way of getting the Railcard discount to which they are entitled (or some of it). Sometimes they can't get that discount on Oyster. Indeed, the Network Railcard minimum fare is probably TfL's best excuse for not offering that discount on Oyster since, on weekdays, the minimum fare would usually preclude any entitlement to the discount when the tube fare is considered in isolation.

But that is *exactly* why it's perfectly reasonable for a passenger making a through journey to want to buy a through ticket rather than split at the point where they change from train to tube: they are making a longer journey and paying more than the minimum fare, so they want their discount. That's why they bought the Railcard!

I don't know if the OP has a Railcard, but his journey is a good example of one where, as a Network Railcard holder, I would always check the U-zone fare knowing that if I pay my tube fare separately, it wouldn't attract a discount whereas the U-zone ticket would (though, in truth, this didn't always mean the U-zone fare would be cheaper). It seems really strange to me that this could be seen as an anomaly or loophole: it looks to me like it was the system working as it should!

 

[Watershed]

It seems really strange to me that this could be seen as an anomaly or loophole: it looks to me like it was the system working as it should!

From a passenger's perspective, absolutely. From the TOCs' perspective (or particularly TfL), they may feel that Railcard holders shouldn't be getting a discount on peak-time Tube/DLR travel when they wouldn't do so on Oyster.

 

[Sonic1234]

From the TOCs' perspective (or particularly TfL), they may feel that Railcard holders shouldn't be getting a discount on peak-time Tube/DLR travel when they wouldn't do so on Oyster.

This is assuming the Railcard holder would still travel at full fare. If they don't, both the TOC and TfL have lost the fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is assuming the Railcard holder would still travel at full fare. If they don't, both the TOC and TfL have lost the fare.

It's fairly unlikely they wouldn't to be honest. We're talking about £2ish.

 

[Starmill]

It's fairly unlikely they wouldn't to be honest. We're talking about £2ish.

Is it?

I wouldn't travel by rail internationally at all without a protected ticket insofar as allowable at most under the CIV. This level of protection is very basic, so even this meagre right in law doesn't really help much if disruption is very serious. If your suggested course of action is booking to London Terminals and using Contactless / Oyster to London St Pancras I most definitely wouldn't be taking on that risk. If you wish to put your £150 Eurostar single at that kind of risk, or schedule an arrival 3 hours before departure at St Pancras to absorb indefinite delay, then of course that's your decision, but no way would I take that kind of risk on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it?

I wouldn't travel by rail internationally at all without a protected ticket insofar as allowable at most under the CIV. This level of protection is very basic, so even this meagre right in law doesn't really help much if disruption is very serious. If your suggested course of action is booking to London Terminals and using Contactless / Oyster to London St Pancras I most definitely wouldn't be taking on that risk. If you wish to put your £150 Eurostar single at that kind of risk, or schedule an arrival 3 hours before departure at St Pancras to absorb indefinite delay, then of course that's your decision, but no way would I take that kind of risk on.

We aren't talking about London International CIV tickets here (which I am fairly sure have always been specifically priced and not calculated). We are talking about tickets to London Zone 1 which offer no more protection to a Eurostar passenger than those to London Terminals.

The correct answer to this issue is, of course, travel insurance, in any case. Just as if the Eurostar was a flight. It is seriously imprudent to travel internationally without insurance, if only because you don't want your family to have to be resorting to crowdfunding to get you medically repatriated if you're seriously ill while abroad.