Set Down only stops with an ALR?

[yorkie]

Then why is it a set down only train?

Surely by definition, because it is a set down only train, it can only set down passengers, and not pick them up.

So what do you suggest the punishment is? Lock them in a cell? The punishment is to charge them from the previous stop, because their ticket isn't valid from the previous stop, a ticket from the previous stop is required. But wait, the ALR is valid from the previous stop!

Tom Cairns goes on ALRs often. He has boarded set down only trains, and the guard rushed to him, expecting to be able to do a massive excess. However the guard then saw the ALR. I need not say any more! He has also contacted ATOC who confirm that no excess can be charged as the ticket is valid from the previous stop.

A ticket is valid, or it isn't.

I do not claim a SRA-LST ticket is valid. I do claim a CHM-LST ticket, or an ALR, is valid, and Squashie P has sold such a ticket before. Squashie P has not sold an invalid ticket. It's valid. End of story.

 

[Old Timer]

Yorkie

Exactly WHAT part of a train stopping to set down is not booked to pick up passengers do you not understand ??

It is NOT available for the use by passengers full stop.

Even the timetable says so.

This appears to be yet another personal crusade you are on.

I shall be raising the case of Mr Cairn's breaking of Conditions of Carriage with ATOC on Monday

 

[jon0844]

As I said, a set down train can leave early - and as said elsewhere, it is possible that it won't stop at the same platform each time and there's no need to inform passengers waiting as the train isn't for them.

But if someone sees it and boards, I really do think it would be impossible to enforce any sort of penalty. Sure, a PF may be issued and paid - but that doesn't make it enforceable. I too can see the above example of a court session being quite accurate.

The railway would need to have much tighter controls in place to stop someone boarding a train set for set down only. We'd probably end up having a train stopping at a platform where nobody can enter it - just exit - for it to be considered possible to stop someone accidentally boarding a set down only service.

The railway might not like such an arrangement, but if it was ever to be tested in court then this is the likely outcome. In the end, what will happen is the train operators will probably not pursue any claims where some appeals - but will happily sell new tickets or give penalties in the hope that a percentage will voluntarily pay up.

Another example where I'd be kicking up a fuss is if I boarded the wrong train without anyone telling me. When I was in York, we had advanced tickets for an East Coast service to London booked at around 2030. Earlier delays had resulted in the service an hour before arriving just 2 minutes before our train. The screens on platform 3 were way down the platform and the announcer may as well be off for the good it is when there are trains coming and going.

As it was early, how did I know this wasn't my train? As it happened, I'd seen the earlier service was delayed and had my suspicions - so managed to find a member of staff who confirmed to me that it was the delayed service.. and got off just in time. I suspect that plenty of people didn't and travelled on the wrong train - and with advance tickets that's a big no no. What would the on-board staff have done to them?* Charged them for a new ticket to add insult to injury? (as they wouldn't have anywhere to sit if the seats were taken and the train was quite full).

* Probably nothing as on our correct service there was no ticket check at all.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie

Exactly WHAT part of a train stopping to set down is not booked to pick up passengers do you not understand ??

It is NOT available for the use by passengers full stop.

Even the timetable says so.

This appears to be yet another personal crusade you are on.

I shall be raising the case of Mr Cairn's breaking of Conditions of Carriage with ATOC on Monday

I am disappointed to hear that you appear to believe Squashie P acted incorrectly in charging a ticket that you appear to believe is invalid for that journey. Please can you reveal what should be issued to passengers undertaking such a journey? A ticket that is valid from Chelmsford is, according to you, not valid, therefore I'd like to know what you suggest should be done? Should the customer be charged with an offence? If so, what is the offence, and has this occurred before?

 

[90019]

So what do you suggest the punishment is? Lock them in a cell? The punishment is to charge them from the previous stop, because their ticket isn't valid from the previous stop, a ticket from the previous stop is required. But wait, the ALR is valid from the previous stop!

Tom Cairns goes on ALRs often. He has boarded set down only trains, and the guard rushed to him, expecting to be able to do a massive excess. However the guard then saw the ALR. I need not say any more! He has also contacted ATOC who confirm that no excess can be charged as the ticket is valid from the previous stop.

A ticket is valid, or it isn't.

I do not claim a SRA-LST ticket is valid. I do claim a CHM-LST ticket, or an ALR, is valid, and Squashie P has sold such a ticket before. Squashie P has not sold an invalid ticket. It's valid. End of story.

Thank you for bypassing my point.

Can you please show me where it states that you are allowed to board set down only trains?

 

[yorkie]

Thank you for bypassing my point.

Can you please show me where it states that you are allowed to board set down only trains?

You bypassed my point.

Your point centres around prevention. But what do you do if you are a guard, and someone has boarded, what do you do? Do you issue them with a ticket that is valid from the previous station (if one is not already held) like other guards do (well, those that don't let the customer off!)? Or do you just constantly say to the customer "you can't do that, you can't do that"?

What part of the NCoC does it break as ATOC do not know apparently!

If a customer boards a set down train with a ticket that is valid from the previous stop, no excess is payable, as the correct action if someone boards a set down train with a ticket that is not valid from the previous stop, is to issue one that is!!!

 

[90019]

Your point centres around prevention.

No, my point was; where does it say that you can board a set down only train?

I'm not interested in what the guard does if someone does get on, as this is not what I am asking about.

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure you can say you're allowed to board a set down only service, but I am of the opinion that there is nothing to stop you - besides a sign saying 'please don't'.

As a result of there being nothing in place to physically stop you, I suspect that if you have a valid ticket there's little that can be done legally. And, once again, that doesn't mean someone can't try and give you a penalty or charge you as if you boarded earlier - it's just that I'd expect such a case to fail if you refused to accept the penalty and referred it to court.

It's a moot point anyway; the TOC simply would NOT allow it to go to court and set a precedent (they'd drop the claim or let you off as a goodwill gesture) - or risk being told that they must put in some sort of measures to stop people boarding, taking action to eject people that do (imagine the carnage that would happen if that was to happen) and doing things that are totally impossible.

Most people presumably don't board such trains, especially if they're not displayed and can call at any time, so it probably isn't even much of an issue.

However, regarding people boarding trains regardless - it's common for trains to stop on the slow line at New Barnet to get over to the fast line into London. As the train stops at the platform (but often doesn't call there), everyone tries to board. Some seem obviously angry that, while it waits, it doesn't open the doors. If the driver did want to risk his job and ever did open the doors, what would happen in that situation?

 

[Old Timer]

In my days the station announcement was quite clear...."This train is stopping to set down passengers only...It is not permitted to join this service".

In BR days many people were excessed back to last stopping point for joining such a service.

If someone holds a full fare ticket then there is no excess payable.

An ALR is a discounted ticket and as such (in my days) was not treated as in the same way as a season ticket but as a discounted ticket. Remember many trains that stop to set down do so in the Peaks and therefore ordinarily discounted tickets are not available anyway on such trains.

Here is the response from National Rail Enquiries

You asked:
Can you join a train that has stopped to set down passengers only
Lisa says:
Some train journeys stop at stations to 'pick up' or 'set down' only at stations on the route. This usually happens on long distance journeys at suburban stations, heading towards or away from large cities.

This makes more seats available for long distance journeys, encourages passengers travelling on shorter journeys to use alternative (but sometimes slower) trains and ensures a more comfortable journey for all passengers.

By stopping to 'pick up only', passengers at that station are given additional journey opportunities, but reduces the number of passengers using quicker trains for local journeys.

By stopping to 'set down only', the reverse applies and allows passengers who are travelling on the long distance journey to connect with local services.

If you board a train at a station which is designated as 'set down only', you may be treated as having joined the train without a valid ticket. You may then be required to buy a ticket between the last 'pick-up station' that the train called at and the next station that your ticket would be valid from. Where no break of journey is allowed on your ticket, a new ticket may be required.

If you intend to leave a train at a station which is shown as pick up only, you may discover that the train only stops to pick up passengers if passengers are on the platform - you may find that the train doesn't stop. If this happens, you will need to buy a ticket to the next station at which the train stops.

 

[yorkie]

No, my point was; where does it say that you can board a set down only train?

I'm not interested in that. I am interested in what happens when someone does, as that is the question. I do not deny that you could be denied access to the platform (theoretically - depending on arrangements) and that something could be in place to physically stop you. But at Stratford nothing stops you. So, if you do board, what then? THAT is the question!

I'm not interested in what the guard does if someone does get on, as this is not what I am asking about.

So you are not interested in the question the OP posted? In which case, why post in the topic?

If you intend to leave a train at a station which is shown as pick up only, you may discover that the train only stops to pick up passengers if passengers are on the platform - you may find that the train doesn't stop. If this happens, you will need to buy a ticket to the next station at which the train stops.

Ah, I see what you did there. You took a statement that ASSUMES that the customer does not have a ticket valid BEYOND their station. And you then applied it to someone who DOES have a ticket beyond their station.

Guard: "Sir, you have a ticket valid to Crewe, but this train is pick up only at Watford"
Customer: "Right"
Guard: "Are you intending to get off at Watford? If so I will charge you to Crewe"
Customer: "My ticket is valid to Crewe, so what does it matter?"
Guard: "I just made up a rule"
Customer: "Ah, okay, well yes I am intending to get off at Watford"
Guard: "Right, your ticket to Crewe is not valid. I am now charging you a ticket to Crewe."
Customer: "That makes no sense"
Guard: "You are a customer. You are a newbie. I know everything. The customer is always wrong. Sorry, you cannot have a Waldorf salad from the buffet; we are out of Waldorfs"

 

[90019]

So you are not interested in the question the OP posted? In which case, why post in the topic?

Because you said this:

You can board a set down only train

And I would like to know where it says that this is the case.

 

[Old Timer]

I am not sure you can say you're allowed to board a set down only service, but I am of the opinion that there is nothing to stop you - besides a sign saying 'please don't'.

As a result of there being nothing in place to physically stop you, I suspect that if you have a valid ticket there's little that can be done legally. And, once again, that doesn't mean someone can't try and give you a penalty or charge you as if you boarded earlier - it's just that I'd expect such a case to fail if you refused to accept the penalty and referred it to court.

It's a moot point anyway; the TOC simply would NOT allow it to go to court and set a precedent - or be told that they must put in some sort of measures to stop people boarding, taking action to eject people that do (imagine the carnage that would happen if that was to happen).

There is NO moot point. When you enter the Railway you agree to be bound by the Conditions of Carriage and the Byelaws. There is normally a sign or announcement stating that you cannot join the train. You are required to comply with directions given when on the Railway. Joining the train is in contravention of that instruction and failing to obey instructions is a byelaw offence.

You enter into a legal Contract of a completely different type to that of buying something from a shop, so there is no issue about a TOC backing down. If the ticket is not valid then you are already in breach of your Contract. In the case of Railways, much of the Contract is enforcable under Criminal Law not Civil Law.

 

[MCR247]

Yorkie

Exactly WHAT part of a train stopping to set down is not booked to pick up passengers do you not understand ??

It is NOT available for the use by passengers full stop.

Even the timetable says so.

This appears to be yet another personal crusade you are on.

I shall be raising the case of Mr Cairn's breaking of Conditions of Carriage with ATOC on Monday

Ok then, if I was to board then, not saying its right, whats the worst that could happen?

 

[yorkie]

Because you said this:



And I would like to know where it says that this is the case.

If you board a train at a station which is designated as 'set down only', you may be treated as having joined the train without a valid ticket. You may then be required to buy a ticket between the last 'pick-up station' that the train called at and the next station that your ticket would be valid from. Where no break of journey is allowed on your ticket, a new ticket may be required.

It says it there (already quoted by Old Timer), but note that the consequences detailed there apply to someone who is not already in possession of a ticket that is valid " between the last 'pick-up station' that the train called at and the next station that your ticket would be valid from". Obviously if such a ticket is held, then there is no further excess to pay as the correct fare has already been paid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok then, if I was to board then, not saying its right, whats the worst that could happen?

RPIs have already stated that, if you held a ticket from SRA-LST (or a travelcard) they would excess you to a valid ticket, and that a ticket from Chemlsford (the last stop for picking up passengers) to Liverpool St is valid, therefore it would be issued. Obviously therefore a ticket that is valid from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street is valid, as they are not in the business of issuing invalid tickets. A ticket that is valid from Chelmsford to Liverpool St includes an ALR. Therefore no excess can be charged. ATOC have agreed with this. Note that to get any sense out of ATOC you have to go high up, and this is not easy to do unless you have 'contacts'. Which I do not, but I know people who do.

 

[90019]

It says it there (already quoted by Old Timer), but note that the consequences detailed there apply to someone who is not already in possession of a ticket that is valid " between the last 'pick-up station' that the train called at and the next station that your ticket would be valid from". Obviously if such a ticket is held, then there is no further excess to pay as the correct fare has already been paid.

Why couldn't you just put that in your first reply?

Seriously, you should run for parliament! Your ability to ignore the question asked and answer your own one instead is uncanny!

 

[yorkie]

Why couldn't you just put that in your first reply?

You should run for parliament! Your ability to ignore the question asked and answer your own one instead is uncanny!

Very funny. It's not the issue. You admit you are ignoring the actual question posed in this topic! I am addressing that issue, you are not. I am not answering my own question; the OP asked the question. You are not interested? Fine, your choice. But don't have a go at me for answering it.

Surely you can understand that a security person cannot really stand beside every door/entrance denying people entry - so why ask how it can be stopped? The question is not preventing it, but what happens if people do it. The answer is: If the guard enforces the rules, they have to have a valid ticket, and a ticket from the set down only station to the next stop, is not valid. A ticket issued from the previous pick up stop to the next stop is valid. This clearly includes an ALR.

 

[Old Timer]

Ok then, if I was to board then, not saying its right, whats the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is that you are charged the excess between the fare paid and the relevant fare from the last calling point.

However the issue here is more of someone suggesting it is OK to board a train that has stopped to set down only.

These trains are not intended for passengers to join at that location. This information is generally made quite clear by announcements or by the departure indicators. Such information is treated as Instructions in Law and it is incumbent upon passengers to comply with instructions given. Ergo if you join a set down only train you have actually broken the railway byelaws.

As for tickets, then it is a matter of whether your ticket is valid and what the excess fare arrangements are.

What is reprehensible in all this is the suggestion that you can join a set down train. This is definitely NOT the case, although it may be possible to do so physically.

We seem to be more and more in a Society where people feel that "rules" and conditions of carriage do not apply to them personally, and suggests a mindset towards Society generally that I find increasingly distasteful.

 

[dan_atki]

Can of worms alert!

I should state before I continue that the whole idea of this post goes beyond the whole 'The train stops to set down only so you shouldn't get on it at all' argument as there are several reasons why someone might (accidentally or purposely) get on such a train. The rest follows from a completely fares based argument.

I think to resolve this a whole ideology needs to be adapted. Why do trains have pick up/set down only calls?

The official line (as I read in an old edition of SWT's 'e-motion' a couple of years ago) was the whole point of the pick up only at Clapham was to prevent local customers using the service from Waterloo. Obviously, boarding a service with a Waterloo to Clapham ticket would be invalid but what about a Waterloo to Winchester?

It's valid on the train but for getting off at Clapham? In reality a ticket check is almost certainly not going to occur until after leaving Clapham, and there's all of two members of staff (one guard, one platform assistant on busy platform 9) who would be the only people to stop you getting off. Even then can they force you to remain on the train?

A couple of months ago on the 444 the guard even announced (the automated announcements are set up for the pick up only) that we were approaching Clapham and to change there for Victoria, Gatwick, Brighton, and Willesden!

I find it surprising that in the reverse direction the trains are not set down only. Still, I have never seen any more than 5 people get on a Waterloo train on platform 7 so they may as well be!

OK, now the reverse argument. The set down only frequently occurs when close to a London Terminal as in this case and they don't want short haul passengers on an intercity train. (The only other ordinary case is late at night when there isn't any people to get on and so I suspect this helps the early departures).

People happily get on the train at Chelmsford, and the Chelmsford to London Terminals ticket is valid. The train then sets down at Stratford. There is no doubt at all that anyone boarding it with a Stratford to London Terminals ticket is in the wrong. The train has not picked up at Stratford for such tickets to be valid.

(I have always argued that if you had a combination of tickets such that the train had to stop at the changeover then they were only valid if you could theoretically alight and board the train at that stop - i.e. it is neither a pick up nor set down only).

The can of worms is then 'Would a Chelmsford to London Terminals ticket be valid for boarding at Stratford, provided it is completely unused?'. If we pretend for a moment that no-one saw you got on at Stratford and then a ticket check commenced, how would anyone know you had indeed got on at Stratford? As far as the guard is aware you are a long haul passenger from Chelmsford.

It has already been established that a passenger on one of the Waterloo to Clapham services above with such a ticket would be charged a fare to the next Set Down station. It has also been established that a passenger on one of these Stratford to Liverpool Street services would be charged a fare from the previous Pick Up station.

So which of the following three options is best for you:
1) Board with no ticket;
2) Board with a Stratford - Liverpool Street ticket;
3) Board with a Chelmsford - Liverpool Street ticket?

Clearly 1 and 2 are not valid options and you would expect to pay some sort of penalty. In the case of 1 this would be a penalty fare, and in 2 a Chelmsford - Liverpool Street ticket/excess on top.

So this leaves option 3. If this ticket is invalid, then as has been stated a Chelmsford - Liverpool Street ticket would be issued (despite one already being held), meaning that this customer has paid more than the customer in scenario 2. Surely this does not make sense?

There can only be one correct approach to what to do is someone (inadvertantly or otherwise) boards a set down only train:
1) Charge for Stratford - Liverpool Street AND Chelmsford - Liverpool Street;
2) Charge for Chelmsford - Liverpool Street (accepting any such ticket held).

If no penalty fares system was in operation, you'd be better off not having any ticket in the case of 1 as you'd then only be charged Chelmsford - Liverpool Street. Again, this is silly.

The set down only applies, in my interpretation, to be barred to customers boarding with a ticket from that particular station - not a fully unused one from a station much further up the line (on the proviso that in this case the complete Chelmsford - London Terminals ticket is regarded as fully used upon arrival in London). The correct fare would have been paid to travel on that train.

In the case of an ALR, as has been argued already - this could effectively be classed as a Chelmsford - London Terminals ticket so could effectively be seen as fine.

There is no mention of alighting at a pick up only stop nor boarding at a set down only stop in the Conditions of Carriage. Of course, it is intuitive that one should not do so but the penalties are not in the public domain if we do go against this.

In an ideal world, of course nobody would alight at a pick up/board at a set down but there isn't enough people to stop these instances, and there are also people of lesser intelligence who use the railways seeing 'Liverpool St' on the front, or asking an alighting passenger if the train goes to London.

 

[yorkie]

These trains are not intended for passengers to join at that location. This information is generally made quite clear by announcements or by the departure indicators. Such information is treated as Instructions in Law and it is incumbent upon passengers to comply with instructions given. Ergo if you join a set down only train you have actually broken the railway byelaws..

Which byelaw is being broken, and why do NRES state on their website that someone doing this is entitled to pay a fare from the previous stop and not say they are breaking a byelaw? Surely they should state that there is no fare, and that it is a breach of byelaws and list the penalties (is 30 days in prison enough? ) if that is indeed the case.

If what you say is true it should say something like this:

If you board a train at a station which is designated as 'set down only', you are commiting a criminal act under Byelaw XYZ. You will be prosecuted.

However it actually says you will be charged a fare. Which, in the case of an ALR, has already been paid.

So is it a breach of the byelaws? Can a breach of a law have a fare imposed on it? e.g. if you are caught smoking, can you be charged a smoking ticket? I'd have thought not. Surely charging a fare legitimises something.

If it is a breach of byelaws, why do some rail staff allow passengers to board such trains?

 

[Old Timer]

Definition of a valid ticket undert the byelaws...

"valid ticket" means a ticket (including any associated photo/identity card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of the person using or attempting to use it and entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use.

Bold is mine.
The particular service is not available for the person to use if it is a stop to set down service.

 

[90019]

Very funny. It's not the issue. You admit you are ignoring the actual question posed in this topic! I am addressing that issue, you are not. Surely you can understand that a security person cannot really stand beside every door/entrance denying people entry - so why ask how it can be stopped? The question is not preventing it, but what happens if people do it. The answer is: If the guard enforces the rules, they have to have a valid ticket, and a ticket from the set down only station to the next stop, is not valid. A ticket issued from the previous pick up stop to the next stop is valid. This clearly includes an ALR.

Please, give it a rest.

I questioned part of your argument because it didn't seem right, however instead of adressing my original point, you talked about something completely different.


You know what, lets take your example and turn it around;

Guard: "Sir, this train is pick up only at Watford so I shall have to excess your fare back to Crewe"
Customer: "Ah, but I have an ALR that is valid from Crewe as well"
Guard: "Regardless of this fact, Sir, you have used it to board this train at Watford, and so it is invalid for this journey"
"But I know what I'm on about. I have never worked on the railway and have had no training in ticketing, but I am right, I know everything. The customer is never wrong. I can have a Waldorf salad from the buffet; there are plenty of Waldorfs"

 

[yorkie]

Definition of a valid ticket undert the byelaws...
Bold is mine.
The particular service is not available for the person to use if it is a stop to set down service.

Oh, so the RPIs who issue tickets valid from the previous stop are issuing invalid tickets? And NRES is wrong, when it says a ticket from the previous pick up stop is valid? Hmmm!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please, give it a rest.

I questioned part of your argument because it didn't seem right, however instead of adressing my original point, you talked about something completely different.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were not interested in addressing the OP's question. Had I realised, I would have answered differently.

 

[90019]

Sorry, I didn't realise you were not interested in addressing the OP's question. Had I realised, I would have answered differently.

You're rather moody tonight.

I questioned something you'd said which I didn't think sounded right, specifically when you said you could board set down only trains, I don't see why you have such a problem with that, and I don't see why you think it has no relevance to the OP, since it's about getting on a set down only train.

 

[evil_hippo]

These trains are not intended for passengers to join at that location.

Why on earth should I give a sh*t about the intentions of the planners behind the railway, in many cases influenced by the privatised railways' politics rather than by me, the passenger, where boarding and alighting restrictions are concerned? If it is physically possible to board or alight, and I will not harm anyone by doing so, it seems that whether a man in an office intended that I do that is completely irrelevant. Obviously there are legal questions, but it has no relevance to the moral standpoint you go on to make:

What is reprehensible in all this is the suggestion that you can join a set down train. This is definitely NOT the case, although it may be possible to do so physically.

We seem to be more and more in a Society where people feel that "rules" and conditions of carriage do not apply to them personally, and suggests a mindset towards Society generally that I find increasingly distasteful.

Actually, I think the formation of relative morals, based on what's actually causing harm to people, is a perfectly good thing. It stops us from being controlled by, and made a victim of, anyone in a position of authority that decides to lay down rule that's to the detriment of the others. Indeed, if the British National Party suddenly took control of the British Parliament, and made rules dictating that we systematically discriminated against minority groups in one way or another, then many of us here would consider it our duty as good citizens NOT to follow those rules.

In the case of boarding a train it isn't intended that you board, or leaving a train it isn't intended that you leave, blind obedience to authority would tell you it's wrong, but a relativistic moral judgment based on actual harm would look like this:

- Will anyone be upset, hurt, inconvenienced, or otherwise harmed by me taking this action in the short term?
- Can I percieve a long term detrimental effect in which people will be upset, hurt, inconvenienced, or otherwise harmed by the knock-on effects of me taking this action?
- Answer: to the very best of my knowlege, no.
- Therefore: I will undertake this action.

I can see no circumstances in which boarding or alighting against the railway's will would cause harm in either of the two ways described. In many cases, it's simply down to a allowing trains to depart a station early, to a TOC not getting a share of revenue to/from that station, or suchlike.

And if an action is based on a judgment like that, and does not harm anyone, then I find it hard to see how there is any good argument whatsoever for saying that someone shouldn't take it.

If society is in a mindset of following "rules" less and less, and thinking for itself more and more, then I do not find that distasteful in the slightest.

 

[yorkie]

You're rather moody tonight.

I questioned something you'd said which I didn't think sounded right, specifically when you said you could board set down only trains, I don't see why you have such a problem with that, and I don't see why you think it has no relevance to the OP, since it's about getting on a set down only train.

*sigh*

No, my point was; where does it say that you can board a set down only train?

I'm not interested in what the guard does if someone does get on, as this is not what I am asking about.

Now I know that if you had a ticket say from Stratford to Liv st, and you boarded a Set down only train, they could charge you from the last stop.

But what happens if you do this with an ALR? Would I have to pay some sort of penalty fare? (I'm still talking about Stratford - Liverpool St)

Look, you admit you are "not interested" in the OP's question. Fine. I thought you were, so I answered on that level. I now realise you weren't. As for being "moody", well if you hadn't posted this...

Seriously, you should run for parliament! Your ability to ignore the question asked and answer your own one instead is uncanny!

.. which (rightly or wrongly) I considered to be a bit ironic, then perhaps I'd be a little less abrupt back

But, as I said earlier, had I realised this from the start, I would have answered differently. What more can I say? I didn't really expect a question about why you can't do something when it's pretty clear that you can physically do it and the question is about what happens if you do. I have now answered your point, sorry for not answering it earlier. Hopefully that's the end of it now.

If society is in a mindset of following "rules" less and less, and thinking for itself more and more, then I do not find that distasteful in the slightest.

I agree. If someone has paid £hundreds for an All Line Rover valid on any train, there is nothing immoral about catching a Class 90 on a Stratford-Liverpool Street working, where only a ticket valid from Chelmsford (which the ticket held is) is, strictly speaking, valid. If someone is just doing Stratford-Liverpool St on a Stratford-Liverpool St ticket, then it is debatable. I personally see nothing morally wrong with it, but I accept that some do, and I accept that, strictly speaking, you can be charged from Chelmsford. I do not accept that it is a breach of bye-laws, that it is illegal or that anyone doing it is a bad person.

 

[nedchester]

Seems to me that the modern railway seems to revel in 'criminalising' things that aren't criminal. Where is the harm in getting on/off) a train that has a set down/pick up stop with something like an ALR?

Charging someone an excess would be a public relations disaster if the passenger went to the press.

 

[MCR247]

Ok, Old Timer, I don't really want to know if I should board or not, that wasnt the question

 

[Broken Viking]

On this particular topic, I also have a similar question to ask:

As many of ye know, I now make quite a few journeys along the Chiltern line out of Marylebone towards Birmingham and back whenever seeing my other half.
I've always wanted to try out a W&S service to see what they are like (Mainly because they get special permissions to run at higher speeds along the Chiltern! ) but because of W&Ss timetable arrangements, this hasn't yet been possible.

Although I see that I could physically board or alight a W&S train at Banbury, all of their services from that station are noted as PU only northbound and SD only heading south.
Given that I normally hold a Chiltern OPH ticket for my journey between Moor St and Marylebone, what would be my position if I attempted to use a W&S service between MYB and BAN (Or vice-versa) with that ticket?

Farewell, and thanks for any info!

 

[jon0844]

This HAS to be tested in court and a proper decision made once and for all.

A sign saying 'please do not board' is not sufficient in my view to stop someone contravening a byelaw and allow someone to be punished, or charged as if they travelled from somewhere they didn't. It's too easy for someone to board a set-down only train under the circumstances mentioned.

This argument could (and probably will) go on as long as the one about whether you can pass a circular sign showing a pedestrian being crossed out - even when such a sign is placed before a set of stairs that leads to the only station exit!

 

[ChrisTheRef]

Oh stop the bickering!

On any train, you need a ticket which is valid between two stations at which it picks up passengers.

Whilst you're getting on at a SD stop, your ticket is valid from that trains last calling point, even if it was 100 miles north of where you are now.

Your ticket is valid, you can't be charged anything, end of discussion.

Now give it a rest?