My ideas to limit Split Ticketing

[eastdyke]

Some observations from afar:

TOC's need to maximise the revenue for each journey that customers can be persuaded to make on their train (and that is the key) for travel between any 2 stations on any given service.

They (TOC's) should and will price tickets to that end and this of course is why split ticketing can save a customer money.

Whilst I do have a little sympathy for Robsignals case, I am pleased that Robsignals does not 'run the railway' as there would surely be both empty trains and more congested roads over parts of the country.

 

[dieselbashdave]

I've found out I can save £24.00 on "walk-up" fares from INV - MAN by taking Stagecoach Megabus to Glasgow then from GLC - MAN via Preston on VT and NR. Going back I can go from MAN - York - Edinburgh and then onto INV by Citylink Bus.

I'm only a leisure traveller now - Scotrail lost to a 3.0 V6 twin turbo diesel Saab 9-5 as it has far lower cost/mile and far greater convenience. And there are no cretinous nitwits inside it (apart from me)

Of course the most sensible thing for leisure travellers to do is to book in advance, if that's not possible give the dosh to Brian Souter or NX (NX: £66 return with the flexible ticket, £55 with Funfare ticket; direct bus in both directions from INV-MAN).

Ultimately, the parable is to look around and if you are dead-set on taking the train and getting a lower fare to see what magic Megabus can offer; in Scotland the coverage is excellent. In Englandshire maybe NX or another bus operator does the same thing?

Going from INV - TRU would ordinarily cost £400+ with an advance ticket via train! This was a hypothetical journey as it's more or less across the entire length of the country, and that's why I picked it. By splitting via Megabus from INV - EDB it's down to £202.00 for the train return. Bus will be about £10 - £30 tops. Huge saving by taking 200 miles by bus instead.

The train fares have come from takethetrain.co.uk, which can offer some interesting but valid routing!

 

[Clip]

Ive read some crazy arguements on some forums including this one in my time but this appears to have just gone completley mental..

Some one pinch me to make sure im not still asleep or something.

 

[NSEFAN]

I know splitting is legal currently but it does involve deliberately misrepresenting the journey really being made to get a lower price than someone who honestly states their journey, that is not fair. It reduces TOC revenue and sooner or later as it keeps growing action will have to be taken to stop it, even the DfT will have to agree it can't be allowed to grow unchecked.

"Misrepresenting the journey" isn't actually true, considering you will still end up in C with an A to C or an A to B + B to C ticket combination. If anything you've been helpful and effectively told the TOC the route you've taken.

As many have stated, the use of split tickets has its conditions which must be followed (for example, taking a train which stops at B). It is not the fault of the passenger that the railway insists on using such a convoluted ticketing system, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect passengers to try and legally reduce their fares. As has been said, many passengers don't understand ticketing at all, so they would be wise to avoid splitting tickets without knowing what they are getting into.

Should anyone try and compare split ticketing to the cases of legal tax avoidance which we have seen in the news recently, don't bother. There's a difference between hoarding trillions of dollars from the stagnant global financial system and trying to get a better deal on an expensive rail fare.

 

[yorkie]

TPE have told me that I should split at York , if travelling Poppleton to Manchester, to take advantage of their Advance fares (not available from Poppleton but available from York).

LM have publicly stated on their website that people are advised to split, to take advantage of some of their special offers (and also to start short!)

Also there are no through fares for some journeys and you have to split! For example, if I want to travel from Emerson Park, there is no through ticket, so can you please tell me what ticket(s) I should buy that would not "mis-represent" my journey?

 

[Robsignals]

Apologies for delayed reply, I want to make it absolutely clear I never intended to suggest anyone is doing anything illegal or breaking any rules and I apologise unreservedly to anyone who was offended. Most people are saying it's nonsense anyway so just ignore it if you want.

My personal simplistic view, not intended to start an argument; many things which are legal society considers unacceptable so we don't do them, it's called 'a moral code' and society can't function without it. If a few find an advantage the majority, not knowing about it, can't say if it's right or wrong, individuals then have to decide and, sadly in my opinion, this often amounts to "can I get away with it?" and "yes, they'll never even know" until a 'tipping point' is reached ...

Splitting is legal and ATOC clearly say it's valid when the rules are followed, though alternatively it could be stated as '...not permitted except when (currently) undetectable.' As long as it's on a small scale they won't react but I believe it's nearing the tipping point as losses grow and the majority demand fair treatment. Eventually the DfT will agree to changes which could be "catch all" and ban things that even ATOC didn't want to, or worst of all, adjust many fares upwards.

All I really wanted to ask was might it be a bad idea to increase split ticketing too far, specifically using ordinary tickets to break a journey into sections just to pay less (if same or more no action needed) than someone who asks for the same complete journey on one ticket. I believe that is fundamentally unfair, distorts the figures used for service planning and ultimately will provoke a reaction.

 

[cambsy]

I do splitting tickets a lot if on XC trains, as there a lot of CDR tickets to be had, and all trains stop at the splitting station, I've used up to 8 tickets on a day out from Taunton-Plymouth-Wakefield-Taunton, saving a bout £40-50, and buy them all at Taunton, use National Rail Enquiries website to work out fares.

 

[JamesRowden]

Apologies for delayed reply, I want to make it absolutely clear I never intended to suggest anyone is doing anything illegal or breaking any rules and I apologise unreservedly to anyone who was offended. Most people are saying it's nonsense anyway so just ignore it if you want.

My personal simplistic view, not intended to start an argument; many things which are legal society considers unacceptable so we don't do them, it's called 'a moral code' and society can't function without it. If a few find an advantage the majority, not knowing about it, can't say if it's right or wrong, individuals then have to decide and, sadly in my opinion, this often amounts to "can I get away with it?" and "yes, they'll never even know" until a 'tipping point' is reached ...

Splitting is legal and ATOC clearly say it's valid when the rules are followed, though alternatively it could be stated as '...not permitted except when (currently) undetectable.' As long as it's on a small scale they won't react but I believe it's nearing the tipping point as losses grow and the majority demand fair treatment. Eventually the DfT will agree to changes which could be "catch all" and ban things that even ATOC didn't want to, or worst of all, adjust many fares upwards.

It all comes down to the fact that the railways are now partially a privatised business. The primary goal of a business is to make as much money as possible (not fairness to its customers). It is the TOCs that produce the problems that you are concerned about and not the customer who simply finds the best deal offered by the TOCs. No matter how much you attempt to regulate a private business it will never make its decisions based upon fairness.

All I really wanted to ask was might it be a bad idea to increase split ticketing too far, specifically using ordinary tickets to break a journey into sections just to pay less (if same or more no action needed) than someone who asks for the same complete journey on one ticket. I believe that is fundamentally unfair, distorts the figures used for service planning and ultimately will provoke a reaction.

To answer your question. If passengers' through tickets were set to equal no more than the price of the cheapest combination of tickets that would allow the planned journey, I would guess that those on the through journey would see tickets reduce (if they are not splitting) and those on the parts would see tickets increase.

 

[Robsignals]

It all comes down to the fact that the railways are now partially a privatised business. The primary goal of a business is to make as much money as possible (not fairness to its customers). It is the TOCs that produce the problems that you are concerned about and not the customer who simply finds the best deal offered by the TOCs. No matter how much you attempt to regulate a private business it will never make its decisions based upon fairness.



To answer your question. If passengers' through tickets were set to equal no more than the price of the cheapest combination of tickets that would allow the planned journey, I would guess that those on the through journey would see tickets reduce (if they are not splitting) and those on the parts would see tickets increase.

Right, but TOCs aren't happy about what they see as revenue loss due to splitting and want to stop it. Harmonisation of fares to always give the same total sounds fair all round, but what about pax who really are making short journeys? Is it fair that, not having done anything, they will forever have to pay more?

Some other points: if there's no through ticket of course splitting is ok; if one ticket is a season or a leisure pass then it can be combined with one 'ordinary' ticket but not more. I don't have an answer to many odd situations, as I said there may be many unwanted effects when rules are changed.

 

[tony_mac]

if one ticket is a season or a leisure pass then it can be combined with one 'ordinary' ticket but not more.

The conditions of carriage quite specifically allow for more than one!

There are other things that can be done to reduce the opportunity to split, rather than relying on price rises. Changes in calling patterns (such as in the Didcot Parkway example) reduces the flexibility of split tickets, and hence their attractiveness.

However, there are still cases where split-tickets would be appropriate - such as to use an Advance ticket for most of the journey, or where the majority of the journey is at off-peak times, but a small part is not.

there may be many unwanted effects when rules are changed.

Yes, I would expect so.
If the changes made to the routeing guide or ticket restrictions are any example, there is every chance of them making a mess of it.

For this reason, I think we are more likely to see price rises rather than wholesale rule changes - but only time will tell.

 

[Pen Mill]

My take (Bold because I know other views will differ) on this subject now is that the public have been informed . The TOCs are obviously happy with their pricing structure, it's up to the public to do their own leg work and find the bargains.


On the subject of "The TOCS are happy with their structure" , do the professionals amongst us think that the ticket vendors are always aware of the splits ? just curious !

 

[NSEFAN]

On the subject of "The TOCS are happy with their structure" , do the professionals amongst us think that the ticket vendors are always aware of the splits ? just curious !

Anyone who sells tickets should be aware that the nature of the system means that ticket splitting can sometimes result in a cheaper deal for the passenger.

Whilst individual members of staff might be aware of some local deals which are frequently requested, I doubt a member of staff would be able to just come up with a split on the spot. I imagine the trick is to learn who sets which fares and then try and split at boundaries, something which a member of staff is more likely to know.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think the industry is that worried because the vast majority of people won't split even if someone else tells them exactly what to do.

Merely sitting back and letting people argue about whether it should be allowed is enough to scare most people off. Seems to be what the railway has opted to do.

 

[snail]

I don't think the industry is that worried because the vast majority of people won't split even if someone else tells them exactly what to do.

Merely sitting back and letting people argue about whether it should be allowed is enough to scare most people off. Seems to be what the railway has opted to do.

That sums up very well the attitude of some of my friends or family when I've suggested they look for split tickets, even obvious splits like getting Advance tickets from Birmingham plus a local connection.

 

[Robsignals]

Meant to say I don't agree with having to pay a peak fare for all of a journey when much of it is in off-peak. Maybe a system of peak supplements but they will have to be easy to calculate - based on the first station called at where off-peak applies, similar to splitting in effect but a reduction for everyone given automatically. Also if Advance isn't offered for whole journey an add-on must be ok.

 

[jon0844]

That sums up very well the attitude of some of my friends or family when I've suggested they look for split tickets, even obvious splits like getting Advance tickets from Birmingham plus a local connection.

I've struggled and then given up telling people not to use thetrainline.com and try a site like East Coast (and now earn loyalty points) because they don't seem to understand you can buy any ticket from any TOC. They then pay more from a supposedly independent agent that also claims to offer massive savings you can't get anywhere else, because they feel more comfortable.

Probably the same reason people don't change utility supplier, bank account, phone tariff etc.

 

[Pen Mill]

I don't understand what they are getting away with? A cheaper fare?

Thanks for the PM by the way.

I agree with this and don't for the life of me see where the moral issue is.

You have a pound shop and a £2 shop , you are saying that I should do my shopping in the £2 shop and force the £1 shop to close down.

My morals are intact.

 

[yorkie]

Meant to say I don't agree with having to pay a peak fare for all of a journey when much of it is in off-peak.

Neither do I, which is why I buy a combination of tickets (if I'm not using a loophole to find a ticket with a favourable restriction code and starting/finishing short!)

Maybe a system of peak supplements but they will have to be easy to calculate - based on the first station called at where off-peak applies

It will not be easy to calculate. But if you can devise such a system please create a new thread if you like. I can then give you a list of example scenarios and you can calculate the cost. Rather like the 'price per mile' suggestions, once I've asked a few questions the scheme will probably be found to be unworkable and even more complex than the current system

similar to splitting in effect but a reduction for everyone given automatically.

Not going to happen, and also if a reduction was given automatically would the TOCs not lose even more revenue? At present big businesses pay £silly money - they can afford it - but people like us who can't afford it, who do some research (it's not difficult and trainscanbecheaper.info or MSEs Tickety Split can sometimes work it out for you, if not give you ideas), reap the benefits.

Also if Advance isn't offered for whole journey an add-on must be ok.

This does expose a major problem with your propsals to restrict "splitting"; you would in effect have loads of, what we could call 'easements' that allow splitting in various combinations. Guards would then have to look up, each time someone used a split ticket, whether or not the split was permitted by an easement. And that's in addition to checking easements, validities and routeings for the individual tickets.

What would happen if, today, I could not get a through Advance so split, but on Monday a through fare got introduced, how would the guard know "if Advance isn't offered for whole journey" at the time the passenger booked? (that's a rhetorical question, we all know the answer!)

In short, NRCoC Condition 19 - that explicity permits combinations of two or more tickets for one journey - is here to stay. They may get rid of or alter 19(c) and/or re-define Seasons but the rest of it cannot go.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with this and don't for the life of me say where the moral issue is.
. . . . My morals are intact.

Indeed.
I might have confused some people by using the technical terminology of ethical philosophy, but my remark last night "Any normative evaluation of a passenger's actions (including a statement when buying tickets) can be derived from their actions, but not from the seller's policy" was an attempt to clarify this. The moral question is not one for the passenger to answer; but, there may be ethical questions to be asked of the seller who constructs the pricing policies which have led to 'split ticketing' producing cheaper or more expensive options for travel. I believe that there are, and that it is for the Operators and the Department (who is responsible for chosing the model of privitisation that was adopted, with 'pseudo competition') to answer those ethical questions.

 

[yorkie]

Indeed.

A lot of the need for splitting (not all, I admit) is down to privatisation. What are the main 3 reasons to split?

1) The TOC that prices the through fare is an expensive TOC who has increased fares at a higher rate.

2) The TOC that prices the through fare abolished the old SuperSaver Return. It is my understanding that CDRs became SSRs for longer distance journeys under BR a long time ago, and on many routes the CDRs still exist but the SSRs were abolished and replaced with what we now call Advance fares

3) Draconian peak restrictions introduced by certain TOCs (the likes of Northern excepted!). Remember, all Savers under BR were completely unrestricted unless you were going to the London area in the morning peak (including Reading, Watford Jn, Stevenage etc).

The Off Peak Return from Par to Glasgow Stns is £209.70. But this is not valid on any direct train on weekdays. The direct train leaves at 0928 and this ticket was valid under BR and Virgin Trains. But XC introduced unfair restrictions on this ticket, so customers are now asked to pay £420 for the Anytime Return.

It is only right that passengers, when faced with such a laughable fare, decide to "split". A simple split at Cheltenham does the job. It's £73.70 from Par to Cheltenham and then £134.90 from Cheltenham to Glasgow. Total fare £208.60 (other splits may be cheaper!) which is not only under half the through fare (so less than a child would be asked by a ticket clerk to pay) but is actually less than the invalid through Off Peak fare!

Now, who is acting in a morally dubious way? There is no doubt in my mind that it is XC, but others will disagree. That's fine, we can agree to disagree

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . who is acting in a morally dubious way? There is no doubt in my mind that it is XC, but others will disagree. That's fine, we can agree to disagree

I have struggled, and failed, to find any moral basis for a passenger to choose one option of rail tickets offered for travel rather than another.

 

[dzug2]

Going from INV - TRU would ordinarily cost £400+ with an advance ticket via train! !

??? Given that an anytime single is £234 I don't see how an advance can cost that much

 

[yorkie]

??? Given that an anytime single is £234 I don't see how an advance can cost that much

The most expensive Standard Advance Single is £211 (via London), which I would strongly advise is never purchased because if anyone has that much cash to spend, then an Anytime Single is, as you say, not much more than that.

An Off Peak Return is £234.60 (for the Any Permitted) and has the bonkers 0930 restriction but that can easily be resolved by splitting at (a) suitable station(s) en route, or by taking the sensible route and get real trains (not tinpot DMUs) via London for £220.

The other crazy thing is, if you wanted to take an early train from Inverness (e.g. 0755 changing at Perth & Glasgow arriving 2100), but did not want to go via London, you could get the Super Off Peak Return via London for £220 which is valid for breaking "short" at Birmingham, where you break your journey on that ticket, and then buy a £48.40 Off Peak Return from there to Bristol, and then you can resume "short" after your break of journey from Bristol, resuming the ticket validity from Bristol to Truro. I believe that would be valid as the rule is "For journeys to southern England on CrossCountry via Birmingham, use restriction code 2V or 8X as appropriate" as your journey would be on Virgin to Birmingham and you would be using a separate ticket for Birmingham to Bristol on XC.

But I would always recommend avoiding XC wherever possible anyway.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

My take (Bold because I know other views will differ) on this subject now is that the public have been informed . The TOCs are obviously happy with their pricing structure, it's up to the public to do their own leg work and find the bargains....

The TOCs do try to weed out the splits, but in some cases it simply is not possible (PTE borders, etc). It is definitely up to the public to do some leg work to find them though.

....On the subject of "The TOCS are happy with their structure" , do the professionals amongst us think that the ticket vendors are always aware of the splits ? just curious !

Always aware? No, but local common splits become well known through sales.

Anyone who sells tickets should be aware that the nature of the system means that ticket splitting can sometimes result in a cheaper deal for the passenger....

Indeed, though few will offer them, either through choice or because of the ever watchful eye of local management.

....I doubt a member of staff would be able to just come up with a split on the spot. I imagine the trick is to learn who sets which fares and then try and split at boundaries, something which a member of staff is more likely to know.

As you say, they won't be able to just come up with them, it's just not that simple to do and most people don't want to wait around while you try to find one that they haven't asked for, or which might complicate the journey.

Meant to say I don't agree with having to pay a peak fare for all of a journey when much of it is in off-peak. Maybe a system of peak supplements but they will have to be easy to calculate - based on the first station called at where off-peak applies, similar to splitting in effect but a reduction for everyone given automatically. Also if Advance isn't offered for whole journey an add-on must be ok.

The problem you will face is that you would have a system where a supplement exists for just one train or you end up giving out a million and one tickets for "a simple journey".

Take Manchester to Liverpool for example, there are Off Peak and Off Peak Day tickets with different restrictions, as well as Anytime Day (and Anytime) fares. It might be possible to leave Manchester at "Peak Time" pass Warrington/Earlestown at Off Peak time and arrive in Liverpool at Off Peak Day time. A train five minutes later might leave at Off Peak time and arrive at Off Peak Day time and a train five minutes before might leave at Peak time and arrive at Off Peak time. So all three trains would have different supplements. You might as well have different fares for each train!

The current system of looking for splits or paying the more expensive fare because of a time restriction that expires halfway through the journey, but it is relatively simple.

 

[Robsignals]

I agree with this and don't for the life of me see where the moral issue is.

You have a pound shop and a £2 shop , you are saying that I should do my shopping in the £2 shop and force the £1 shop to close down.

My morals are intact.

The full choice is presented for an informed decision, something the vast product range of journeys and fares makes impossible.

To the public the railway is a single 'shop' with the complete range of products but staff will only sell one item for a stated purpose. Some customers have realised that savings can be made, providing some obtuse and semi-secret shop rules are followed, by self assembling products similar to 'top range' items from cheaper ones by pretending to buy them for their intended purpose. Assembly can be tricky, the finished item will not be as strong and may do the job perfectly or prove far more expensive. Most customers pay full price as they don't know any different or don't know/understand the rules or fear the potentially serious results of breaking them.

Can we agree that it's plain unfair for some customers, through no fault of theirs, to be paying more than others? I suggest that there's a moral question for those paying less even if I'm not sure exactly what it is, nor can I say what the 'right' price should be. It's late and having composed this I'll post it and see what can be made of it - a work in progress.

 

[RJ]

Is anyone here a member of WNXX who remembers virginking390?

 

[bnm]

Can we agree that it's plain unfair for some customers, through no fault of theirs, to be paying more than others?

No.

Is it unfair that customers in any transaction, be that service or retail, often pay more for the same product? Sometimes even from the same service provider/retailer.

Caveat emptor.

 

[gswindale]

The full choice is presented for an informed decision, something the vast product range of journeys and fares makes impossible.

To the public the railway is a single 'shop' with the complete range of products but staff will only sell one item for a stated purpose. Some customers have realised that savings can be made, providing some obtuse and semi-secret shop rules are followed, by self assembling products similar to 'top range' items from cheaper ones by pretending to buy them for their intended purpose. Assembly can be tricky, the finished item will not be as strong and may do the job perfectly or prove far more expensive. Most customers pay full price as they don't know any different or don't know/understand the rules or fear the potentially serious results of breaking them.

Can we agree that it's plain unfair for some customers, through no fault of theirs, to be paying more than others? I suggest that there's a moral question for those paying less even if I'm not sure exactly what it is, nor can I say what the 'right' price should be. It's late and having composed this I'll post it and see what can be made of it - a work in progress.

Indeed it is unfair that some will pay more than others.

In a way; it is similar to buying a computer - you can go down PC World and pay over the odds for a fully assembled machine or you can put some effort in and buy the components individually and build it yourself to save a few £. Should retailers there be forced to adjust their prices? Is it fair that a technologically competent person pays less for something than Joe Public?

 

[starrymarkb]

Yes, cheaper than someone who states the full journey they're making which is unfair.

An example. I want to fly from London to the Far East with KLM. I can buy a through ticket for £1000 or separate tickets London to Amsterdam and Amsterdam to my destination for £700. A large part of the difference is because UK Air Passenger Tax is mileage based and applies to a full through ticket. So instead of paying say £200 tax to the government on the through fare you pay the short haul rate of £12.

Sould I be done for Tax Evasion

Of course if your connection is too tight and the inbound flight is delayed you may find yourself staying in Amsterdam.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed it is unfair that some will pay more than others.

In a way; it is similar to buying a computer - you can go down PC World and pay over the odds for a fully assembled machine or you can put some effort in and buy the components individually and build it yourself to save a few £. Should retailers there be forced to adjust their prices? Is it fair that a technologically competent person pays less for something than Joe Public?

Or speaking of PC world, buying their £30 1m ethernet lead that works just as well as a 50p one from Amazon.

 

[dzug2]

by pretending to buy them for their intended purpose.

Can we agree that it's plain unfair for some customers, through no fault of theirs, to be paying more than others?

1. Not sure where the 'pretending' comes in.

2. And no, I can't agree - partly because I really don't know what 'unfair' means - it's a very elusive concept - and partly because I'm not convinced that there is any requirement to be 'fair' at all. And I'm not convinced about 'no fault of their own'. Perhaps it isn't their fault they are too thick/lazy etc?