My ideas to limit Split Ticketing

[Robsignals]

(Split from Call for cheaper 'ticket splitting' fares to be made more public. Note: this thread contains many claims & misunderstandings that are not actually true regarding split ticketing. )

Ticket Offices can't give split ticket info as without checking all of perhaps 100s of combinations they may be in breach of the requirement to sell the cheapest! Anyway why would TOCs want their staff spending their paid for time on reducing their income?

Fares are not going to be reduced as that would be the same as everyone using splits, TOCs will always prefer to do nothing than that. It would be grotesquely unfair for fares to be raised as the solution but ATOC will be forced to do something as more people split cutting income significantly. I think it is practicle now to detect pax using splits but I won't say how in case... though I'm sure they have a long list of ideas which probably already includes it.

 

[Flamingo]

The problem with splitting is the numerous passengers who want the cheaper fare, but don't want to wait the extra 30 minutes for the train that stops at the splitting station. They are not all "confused" by the split either, most I find are season-ticket holders, repeat offenders, and their usual defence is either "nobody told me" ("yes they did, I saw you last week") or "nobody else charges me".

As far as using split tickets, they are cheaper, but put restrictions on some journies and extra responsibility on the passenger to check their train in the same way that buying an off-peak, child or railcard tticket do. Once everybody remembers this, and gives appropriate advice when they turn up on here complaining about being sold another ticket (eg."you were in the wrong", not "the guard / RPI was a jobsworth"), then there will be less grounds for conflict within the forum, I would submit.

 

[Robsignals]

The problem with splitting is the numerous passengers who want the cheaper fare, but don't want to wait the extra 30 minutes for the train that stops at the splitting station. They are not all "confused" by the split either, most I find are season-ticket holders, repeat offenders, and their usual defence is either "nobody told me" ("yes they did, I saw you last week") or "nobody else charges me".

As far as using split tickets, they are cheaper, but put restrictions on some journies and extra responsibility on the passenger to check their train in the same way that buying an off-peak, child or railcard tticket do. Once everybody remembers this, and gives appropriate advice when they turn up on here complaining about being sold another ticket (eg."you were in the wrong", not "the guard / RPI was a jobsworth"), then there will be less grounds for conflict within the forum, I would submit.

Season Ticket split rules seem very confused, there's no definite right to use a fast train it all depends on how the other ticket is defined by a TOC/PTE or they can just say 'not allowed'. I'm surprised that ATOC treats splits as one journey when delays occur, cake and eating it! That will surely be first to go when splitting revenue loss forces them to act.

I assume that through fare is the operative phrase here and that a "Split" would not necessarily show as a through route ?would it ?

One ticket for the stated journey. Morally isn't misrepresenting the journey being made low level fraud? We rightly condemn fare evaders but I struggle to see the difference other than it's difficult to detect, yes I know it's legal/ATOC say it's acceptable. The rules could be stated as 'splitting is NOT permitted except in tightly specified circumstances'. I'll take cover now...

 

[Flamingo]

Season Ticket split rules seem very confused, there's no definite right to use a fast train it all depends on how the other ticket is defined by a TOC/PTE or they can just say 'not allowed'. I'm surprised that ATOC treats splits as one journey when delays occur, cake and eating it! That will surely be first to go when splitting revenue loss forces them to act.

Season ticket split rules are easy - two season tickets, the train must stop there. One season, one not, train does not have to stop there.

I know that there are combinations along with a Season ticket that are valid even if the train doesn't stop, but unless RJ is on the train, I don't come across them .

The season-ticket holders I come across are 99 times out of 100 splitting at Didcot Parkway. As a general rule only one train an hour to Wales or Bristol Temple Meads stops at Didcot Parkway, so people who buy split season tickets going in this direction are halving the number of trains they can catch. But a significant number of then view this as a mere detail that couldn't possibly apply to them. £32 later, the complaint is invariably on the way to FGW, and I'm having to deal with the "please explain" (usual stuff, "rude, officious, wouldn't listen to my "reasonable" explanation etc.)

 

[Lampshade]

There's no chance of the through fare coming down, only the split ticket prices going up.

 

[JamesRowden]

Surely split ticketing can be done perfectly legally and efficiently by buying the two tickets online and collecting them from a ticket machine at the station that your journey starts at and making sure that all the services that you use are allowed on the tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

 

[Robsignals]

Surely split ticketing can be done perfectly legally and efficiently by buying the two tickets online and collecting them from a ticket machine at the station that your journey starts at and making sure that all the services that you use are allowed on the tickets.

So simple automatic account checks would identify you as a probable 'serial splitter' more easily than if you use a ticket office! I think technology is closing in on splitting and it may not be permitted for much longer, the rule changes could have other effects which splitters will get the blame for - is it really a good idea to encourage more splitting?

 

[JamesRowden]

So simple automatic account checks would identify you as a probable 'serial splitter' more easily than if you use a ticket office! I think technology is closing in on splitting and it may not be permitted for much longer, the rule changes could have other effects which splitters will get the blame for - is it really a good idea to encourage more splitting?

Since one is honouring each of the tickets in its entirety there is surely nothing wrong. What is wrong is the fact that the through ticket is more expensive than the sum of its parts (that makes no sense at all [apart from tricking people into paying to much])

 

[Robsignals]

Season ticket split rules are easy - two season tickets, the train must stop there. One season, one not, train does not have to stop there.

I know that there are combinations along with a Season ticket that are valid even if the train doesn't stop, but unless RJ is on the train, I don't come across them.

Which is a cause of confusion, they've heard of someone who correctly used a fast train. Simple solution - ban splitting full stop!

The season-ticket holders I come across are 99 times out of 100 splitting at Didcot Parkway. As a general rule only one train an hour to Wales or Bristol Temple Meads stops at Didcot Parkway, so people who buy split season tickets going in this direction are halving the number of trains they can catch. But a significant number of then view this as a mere detail that couldn't possibly apply to them. £32 later, the complaint is invariably on the way to FGW, and I'm having to deal with the "please explain" (usual stuff, "rude, officious, wouldn't listen to my "reasonable" explanation etc.)

What about Peak services, or do 'real' commuters simply have to buy one Season if they want to travel then? I trust you are always vindicated and commended by management for your good work.

 

[Flamingo]

Since one is honouring each of the tickets in its entirety there is surely nothing wrong. What is wrong is the fact that the through ticket is more expensive than the sum of its parts (that makes no sense at all [apart from tricking people into paying to much])

Not necessarily. On a lot of the routes I work, the most common split tickets restrict the number of trains the passenger can catch, so buying a "through" ticket gives the passenger much greater flexibility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is a cause of confusion, they've heard of someone who correctly used a fast train. Simple solution - ban splitting full stop!



What about Peak services, or do 'real' commuters simply have to buy one

No, there is no "peak" restriction, just that the train must stop at the station. Simples

As regards do I always get commended - they would rather not deal with the complaints, and have made this very plain. I only do it now through bloody-mindness.

 

[ainsworth74]

Simple solution - ban splitting full stop!

And how, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this rule? I buy two tickets Darlington - York and York - London how do you propose to stop me using them? You say I can't use the same train on split tickets, fair enough I'll get off at York and board the next train to London (and there's plenty of them). So how do you propose to stop me making that journey? I'm honestly curious to hear how you plan to stop splitting entirely?

 

[Robsignals]

Since one is honouring each of the tickets in its entirety there is surely nothing wrong. What is wrong is the fact that the through ticket is more expensive than the sum of its parts (that makes no sense at all [apart from tricking people into paying to much])

You may be sitting next to someone making the same journey on one ticket at a higher price than you've paid, would they think if fair and honourable? They may use words such as fraud or theft and demand that it's stopped at once. The correct fare for the journey is the through ticket, either pay it or don't travel, if TOCs then find their trains are empty they can reduce the fare as First say they will do on WCML.

I remember when the conditions said something like "it is not permitted to use a combination of tickets to avoid paying the correct throughout fare". I wonder how long it'll be before it's changed back?

 

[JamesRowden]

Not necessarily. On a lot of the routes I work, the most common split tickets restrict the number of trains the passenger can catch, so buying a "through" ticket gives the passenger much greater flexibility.

Then as long as the split ticketer is putting themselves under that limitation (which to use the tickets legally they are) there is surely nothing wrong with what they are doing. It is a problem with the tickets being made cheaper to account for low frequencies.

 

[Robsignals]

No, there is no "peak" restriction, just that the train must stop at the station. Simples.

I mean so few Peak trains call at Didcot that splitting isn't an option.

As regards do I always get commended - they would rather not deal with the complaints, and have made this very plain. I only do it now through bloody-mindness.

Sorry to hear that, could say to them that if splitting was banned the problem would disappear...

 

[JamesRowden]

You may be sitting next to someone making the same journey on one ticket at a higher price than you've paid, would they think if fair and honourable? They may use words such as fraud or theft and demand that it's stopped at once. The correct fare for the journey is the through ticket, either pay it or don't travel, if TOCs then find their trains are empty they can reduce the fare as First say they will do on WCML.

I remember when the conditions said something like "it is not permitted to use a combination of tickets to avoid paying the correct throughout fare". I wonder how long it'll be before it's changed back?

The person sitting next door (as you put it) are then being exploited/tricked by the our rail system as a whole (even if it might not be intensional). Let me put it this way. If there was a box set of a season of episodes that was more expensive than the sum of buying all the individual DVDs, surely there would be nothing wrong in going for the cheaper deal.

 

[ainsworth74]

The correct fare for the journey is the through ticket

What is your source for this statement?

I remember when the conditions said something like "it is not permitted to use a combination of tickets to avoid paying the correct throughout fare".

I would be interested to know which edition of the Conditions of Carriage or Byelaws included this statement?

 

[Flamingo]

Sorry to hear that, could say to them that if splitting was banned the problem would disappear...

Oh, there are lots of things they could do to make problems disappear, the easiest thing is to stop enforcing the bylaws / NRCoC, that stops the complaints coming in, so the problem is given the appearance of having gone away. If no complaints are logged, then it doesn't happen.

 

[Robsignals]

And how, exactly, do you plan on enforcing this rule? I buy two tickets Darlington - York and York - London how do you propose to stop me using them? You say I can't use the same train on split tickets, fair enough I'll get off at York and board the next train to London (and there's plenty of them). So how do you propose to stop me making that journey? I'm honestly curious to hear how you plan to stop splitting entirely?

Do you think I should say it openly in case ATOC haven't thought of it? I'll PM you. It won't be easy so expect publicity grabbing heavy penalties as a deterrent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The person sitting next door (as you put it) are then being exploited/tricked by the our rail system as a whole (even if it might not be intensional). Let me put it this way. If there was a box set of a season of episodes that was more expensive than the sum of buying all the individual DVDs, surely there would be nothing wrong in going for the cheaper deal.

No, they have chosen to buy the ticket at what they obviously considered to be an acceptable price. Of course they would've chosen to pay less if they had known and that is the problem, unlike buying in a shop they aren't being given a choice. The only practical way to sell tickets is to only have one throughout fare which a would be customer is either prepared to pay or they don't travel by train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is your source for this statement?


I would be interested to know which edition of the Conditions of Carriage or Byelaws included this statement?

I believe it's the view of the general law abiding public and was a stated condition up to maybe ~1980 or when Condition 19 was changed to allow limited splitting.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This thread is become quite surreal!

For the record, ATOC have already attempted to restrict passengers exploiting "split ticketing" and the Deaprtment has simply refused. I say 'simply' because the proposals weren't realistic.

As for sitting next to someone who has paid a different fare, doesn't this happen in all sorts of ways which are much more frequent, and with differentials which are much more extreme, already?
e.g. a passenger with a £15 Advance and a £145 Anytime, and all the other ticket types in between these extremes?

Its not a consequence of changing the Byelaws, but a consequence of free-market pricing and competition.

 

[Flamingo]

This thread is become quite surreal!

Don't they all

 

[JamesRowden]

No, they have chosen to buy the ticket at what they obviously considered to be an acceptable price. Of course they would've chosen to pay less if they had known and that is the problem, unlike buying in a shop they aren't being given a choice. The only practical way to sell tickets is to only have one throughout fare which a would be customer is either prepared to pay or they don't travel by train.

This thread is all about the possibility of making the public aware of such offers.

 

[Robsignals]

This thread is become quite surreal!

For the record, ATOC have already attempted to restrict passengers exploiting "split ticketing" and the Deaprtment has simply refused. I say 'simply' because the proposals weren't realistic.

Do you know what they proposed?

As for sitting next to someone who has paid a different fare, doesn't this happen in all sorts of ways which are much more frequent, and with differentials which are much more extreme, already?
e.g. a passenger with a £15 Advance and a £145 Anytime, and all the other ticket types in between these extremes?

That's totally different, passengers are given a full choice and select the ticket that best meets their needs.

Its not a consequence of changing the Byelaws, but a consequence of free-market pricing and competition.

...and endemic low-level public dishonesty. Of course it can work both ways, the simplest solution is to raise the short distance fares, DfT might say it must be 'revenue neutral' so token small reductions in long distance fares. It would be a one-off adjustment given a nice cuddly name like "Fares Harmonisation".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This thread is all about the possibility of making the public aware of such offers.

Which will finally provoke ATOC to put a stop to them.

 

[MikeWh]

Do you think I should say it openly in case ATOC haven't thought of it? I'll PM you. It won't be easy so expect publicity grabbing heavy penalties as a deterrent.

Please send me a copy of the PM as well. Say I need to deliver a package to a premises near York railway station. I get off, leave the station, return two minutes later and get on the next train. Would I be forced to buy one ticket allowing break of journey to conclude my business in that scenario? What if I also went to a restaurant and returned two hours later? What if I bought the ticket from Darlington to York, got off the train, bought the next ticket from York to London then got on the next train? Do I have to be subjected to a strip search to see whether I might already have used a ticket for half my journey? What if I dispose of that ticket in a bin at the restaurant?

 

[Greenback]

I'd also like to have the PM. I'm interested to know what proposals there are that would be both practical and enforceable.

 

[JamesRowden]

Which will finally provoke ATOC to put a stop to them.

So you belive that 'TOC A' should be allowed to independently charge for routes that partly use 'TOC B'. 'TOC A' might then produce prices massively more expensive than 'TOC B' would charge in order to force passengers to use another route that brings 'TOC A' more revenue.

Surely the better solution is to scrap returns, half singles and for each ticket to only be accepted along one route and that each section of the route is priced seperatley (but maybe combined in a system that makes the toal price less than the sum of the parts).

Presently when the TOC that sets the price alters (through extending the journey in the journey planner) the price suddenly changes for a reason that is nothing to do with how much people are willing to pay for a journey or the quantity of effort that goes into running the service. It is just caused by two idepedent TOCs effectively offering different charges for the same section of the route route (which only one TOC might actually run).

These anomalies/inconsistencies is the problem and the problem is not the people being smart enough to find a cheaper ticket. If a more consistent ticketing scheme was produced then these inconsistencies should dissapear.

This is a fundamental problem with the ticket pricing system in this country and cannot be solved by simply stopping people from people using different ticket providers and subsequently stopping competion between TOCs.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I assume that through fare is the operative phrase here and that a "Split" would not necessarily show as a through route ?would it ?

A through fare is one ticket which starts at the origin of the journey named and ends at the destination of the journey named. For example, a passenger travels from Liverpool to Manchester, a through fare is one ticket that has an origin of Liverpool and a destination of Manchester.

You may be sitting next to someone making the same journey on one ticket at a higher price than you've paid, would they think if fair and honourable? They may use words such as fraud or theft and demand that it's stopped at once. The correct fare for the journey is the through ticket, either pay it or don't travel, if TOCs then find their trains are empty they can reduce the fare as First say they will do on WCML.

Two near identical cars of the same age are side by side in a traffic queue, both have a male driver around thirty years old and they happen to live in the same neighbourhood. The first driver trusted his insurance company to provide the best deal, the second did some research by comparing quotes from different companies. The second man pays less for his insurance, but both are equally insured. Did the first man get tricked by the insurance company? Or is it his own fault for not looking around?

For those who don't get the analogy, the first man went to the ticket office and asked for a ticket from A to B, the second man did some research and found a workable split and asked for them instead.

 

[Robsignals]

Please send me a copy of the PM as well. Say I need to deliver a package to a premises near York railway station. I get off, leave the station, return two minutes later and get on the next train. Would I be forced to buy one ticket allowing break of journey to conclude my business in that scenario?

Yes, I'd suggest a minimum of 70 minutes between trains, there's not much you can do in less.

What if I also went to a restaurant and returned two hours later?

Ok, more than 70 minutes.

What if I bought the ticket from Darlington to York, got off the train, bought the next ticket from York to London then got on the next train?

Hmm, greyish. Not allowed but you might (always) get away with it.

Do I have to be subjected to a strip search to see whether I might already have used a ticket for half my journey?

Whatever turns you on...Reading my idea its N/A, nothing to do with already used tickets which can be binned, flushed, eaten whatever.

To be honest the chances of being caught will be low but the penalty high - do you feel lucky?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you belive that 'TOC A' should be allowed to independently charge for routes that partly use 'TOC B'. 'TOC A' might then produce prices massively more expensive than 'TOC B' would charge in order to force passengers to use another route that brings 'TOC A' more revenue.

Surely the better solution is to scrap returns, half singles and for each ticket to only be accepted along one route and that each section of the route is priced seperatley (but maybe combined in a system that makes the toal price less than the sum of the parts).

Presently when the TOC that sets the price alters (through extending the journey in the journey planner) the price suddenly changes for a reason that is nothing to do with how much people are willing to pay for a journey or the quantity of effort that goes into running the service. It is just caused by two idepedent TOCs effectively offering different charges for the same section of the route route (which only one TOC might actually run).

These anomalies/inconsistencies is the problem and the problem is not the people being smart enough to find a cheaper ticket. If a more consistent ticketing scheme was produced then these inconsistencies should dissapear.

This is a fundamental problem with the ticket pricing system in this country and cannot be solved by simply stopping people from people using different ticket providers and subsequently stopping competion between TOCs.

I would expect the Regulator/DfT to prevent blatant exploitation of the system, as they already should do. Revising the present system to eliminate inconsistencies comes down to altering fares...upwards.

 

[tony_mac]

I think, like quite a lot of people, I often end up splitting tickets 'accidentally' - because my plans change, or I wish to make a triangular journey and not buy 3* singles.
I can only imagine the complaints if they have to start working out excesses to all the people who used to just buy additional tickets!

However, I don't really think advertising splitting to everybody is the way to go. Apart from adding additional restrictions, which can be a complete PITA when there is disruption (been there, got the t-shirt), it won't be acceptable for train companies to see a major decrease in revenue.

In particular, Anytime tickets in the North are often reasonably priced, whereas long distance tickets to London aren't.
The only realistic option would be to increase the intermediate tickets, or ask the government for extra funding. For something like Liverpool to Stafford to London, this would have to be a substantial increase.

 

[snail]

You may be sitting next to someone making the same journey on one ticket at a higher price than you've paid, would they think if fair and honourable? They may use words such as fraud or theft and demand that it's stopped at once.

What if I am holding an Advance ticket bought at a fraction of the fare the Anytime ticket holder next to me has paid? Is that fair? Should I be arrested for fraud?

Advance tickets encourage split ticketing to some extent, if I was travelling from the North West to the South Coast I wouldn't go for a through ticket if it was possible to get a cheap Advance to Euston and a separate ticket for onward travel. Would that be prohibited under your rules?

 

[Robsignals]

Two near identical cars of the same age are side by side in a traffic queue, both have a male driver around thirty years old and they happen to live in the same neighbourhood. The first driver trusted his insurance company to provide the best deal, the second did some research by comparing quotes from different companies. The second man pays less for his insurance, but both are equally insured. Did the first man get tricked by the insurance company? Or is it his own fault for not looking around?

For those who don't get the analogy, the first man went to the ticket office and asked for a ticket from A to B, the second man did some research and found a workable split and asked for them instead.

I think all motorists know to shop around, it's not as if there's a 'National Insure' site which claims to have all the quotes you need. A better analogy would be two identical drivers/cars/journeys/insurers but one has cheaper insurance because they didn't fill in the Proposal form honestly. If they make a claim they may get a nasty shock or they might get away with it. For rail tickets they are currently guaranteed to get away with it.