Split Advance Tickets

[maddeningcrowds]

Hello everyone

I have just come accross this:

An Advance ticket from A to C costs more than a combination of Advance Tickets from A to B then B to C - all on the same train, same company, same class of travel, even by luck, when booking the tickets, the same seat.

Aside from this being a bizzarre way for the TOC to set prices, can anyone forsee any problem using such a combination? Do I have to get off the train and back on again at B?

 

[gordonthemoron]

no need to get off

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If its the same train there should be no problems with doing it, but make sure the train you book actually stops at B rather than there being a connecting train on the tickets. You do not have to get off the train at B if you are booked on the same train, although you may have to change seats.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Hello everyone

I have just come accross this:

An Advance ticket from A to C costs more than a combination of Advance Tickets from A to B then B to C - all on the same train, same company, same class of travel, even by luck, when booking the tickets, the same seat.

Aside from this being a bizzarre way for the TOC to set prices, can anyone forsee any problem using such a combination? Do I have to get off the train and back on again at B?

Would you care to share the details with us, so we enjoy the perk as well?

 

[Pumbaa]

This is usually the case on XC. AP quotas disappear Bristol > Derby for example, so split at Cheltenham and Brum to save around £20.

 

[maddeningcrowds]

I think my example is also to do with quotas. Leeds-->London on NXEC quotas sell relatively quickly but trips involving Leeds-->Peterborough, Peterborough-->London can still be available at the lower price bands.

 

[yorkie]

The National Conditions of Carriage states that you may use two or more tickets for one journey.

There is no need to get off/on again during the journey.

 

[HowMuch?]

Yes, you can split your ticket at a station where the train calls, and you do not have to get off and on again.

But here is a possible warning. I realise this doesn't apply in the OP's case, but it seems a good opportunity to confirm a potential risk with splitting Advance tickets if you have to change trains .

Can anyone confirm that you might be in trouble with split Advance tickets for a two-leg journey if a delay on the first leg makes you miss a connection ?

It goes something like this ....

Case 1
(Through Advance ticket OK on two-leg journey)

Your journey requiresa a connection at X but you still buy a through Advance ticket all the way from home to your destination. Your ticket is valid on only Train A (from home to station X) and Train B (from X to your destination). Train A breaks down, so you arrive at X too late for Train B. The next train from X is Train C. The collector on Train C at first rejects your ticket because for this leg it was only valid on train B. But when you explain why you could not catch train B, he (perhaps after checking with HQ that train A was delayed) agrees that the Train A's delay is a valid reason for being on Train C instead of on Train B. He accepts your ticket.

Case 2
(Split Advance tickets risky on two-leg journey.)

Next time you travel, you realise that it is cheaper to split your ticket at X. You buy Ticket 1 (cheapest ticket from home to X) and Ticket 2 (an Advance from X on to your destination). Again, Train A breaks down and you end up catching Train C from X ; and again, you explain to the collector about why you missed Train B. But this time he says "You don't have a through ticket, so the delay to Train A is irrelevant. Ticket 2 is not valid on this train and that's the end of it. Kerching! Here's a full price Single from X to your destination. : £150 please." (And perhaps a Penalty fare, but that's another thread!).

Can anyone confirm this is a potential problem ?

.... And if so, does this really still apply even if all the trains are run by the same TOC ? Is it really the case that SnailRail do NOT have to accept Advance Ticket 2 on Train C even if it was SnailRail's bad maintenenance on Train A that caused you to miss Train B ? (Of course, we are not considering here any compensation Snail Rail might owe you for train A arriving late at X. We are just considering, say, a 15 minute delay that could cause you to miss your connection and pay for a new ticket, but would not earn you any late-arrival-at-X compensation).

.... And (for more complications) what if you split your Advance ticket into two (Advance) tickets at Station Y (the first stop after X at which - to remove another complication I can think of) all trains call. Ticket 1 will be acceptable on Train C because it is a through ticket from A to Y. But what happens from Y onwards ? The collector has now agreed that because of the delay, you are allowed to be on Train C. He surely(?) won't reject Ticket 2 ?! Or is it KERCHING ! time again ?

 

[ChrisTheRef]

Case 2
(Split Advance tickets risky on two-leg journey.)

Next time you travel, you realise that it is cheaper to split your ticket at X. You buy Ticket 1 (cheapest ticket from home to X) and Ticket 2 (an Advance from X on to your destination). Again, Train A breaks down and you end up catching Train C from X ; and again, you explain to the collector about why you missed Train B. But this time he says "You don't have a through ticket, so the delay to Train A is irrelevant. Ticket 2 is not valid on this train and that's the end of it. Kerching! Here's a full price Single from X to your destination. : £150 please." (And perhaps a Penalty fare, but that's another thread!).

Can anyone confirm this is a potential problem ?

Not sure on the exact rules, so yeah, maybe you'd get charged (I wouldn't if I was the TM). But surely you can then contact the TOC of Train A, send them the tickets and they'd have to repay you what you paid in the first place?

 

[monkey]

Yes, you can split your ticket at a station where the train calls, and you do not have to get off and on again.

But here is a possible warning. I realise this doesn't apply in the OP's case, but it seems a good opportunity to confirm a potential risk with splitting Advance tickets if you have to change trains .

Can anyone confirm that you might be in trouble with split Advance tickets for a two-leg journey if a delay on the first leg makes you miss a connection ?

It goes something like this ....

Case 1
(Through Advance ticket OK on two-leg journey)

Your journey requiresa a connection at X but you still buy a through Advance ticket all the way from home to your destination. Your ticket is valid on only Train A (from home to station X) and Train B (from X to your destination). Train A breaks down, so you arrive at X too late for Train B. The next train from X is Train C. The collector on Train C at first rejects your ticket because for this leg it was only valid on train B. But when you explain why you could not catch train B, he (perhaps after checking with HQ that train A was delayed) agrees that the Train A's delay is a valid reason for being on Train C instead of on Train B. He accepts your ticket.

Case 2
(Split Advance tickets risky on two-leg journey.)

Next time you travel, you realise that it is cheaper to split your ticket at X. You buy Ticket 1 (cheapest ticket from home to X) and Ticket 2 (an Advance from X on to your destination). Again, Train A breaks down and you end up catching Train C from X ; and again, you explain to the collector about why you missed Train B. But this time he says "You don't have a through ticket, so the delay to Train A is irrelevant. Ticket 2 is not valid on this train and that's the end of it. Kerching! Here's a full price Single from X to your destination. : £150 please." (And perhaps a Penalty fare, but that's another thread!).

Can anyone confirm this is a potential problem ?

.... And if so, does this really still apply even if all the trains are run by the same TOC ? Is it really the case that SnailRail do NOT have to accept Advance Ticket 2 on Train C even if it was SnailRail's bad maintenenance on Train A that caused you to miss Train B ? (Of course, we are not considering here any compensation Snail Rail might owe you for train A arriving late at X. We are just considering, say, a 15 minute delay that could cause you to miss your connection and pay for a new ticket, but would not earn you any late-arrival-at-X compensation).

.... And (for more complications) what if you split your Advance ticket into two (Advance) tickets at Station Y (the first stop after X at which - to remove another complication I can think of) all trains call. Ticket 1 will be acceptable on Train C because it is a through ticket from A to Y. But what happens from Y onwards ? The collector has now agreed that because of the delay, you are allowed to be on Train C. He surely(?) won't reject Ticket 2 ?! Or is it KERCHING ! time again ?

...I followed that till the last paragraph lol, then you lost me. situation two, you're correct, if its split at x, and you miss train b, then it is on you basically, because you haven't a throught journey. you're basically treated as if you got a bus or taxi to that station, and thus it is your fault if you're late...

 

[glynn80]

Can anyone confirm this is a potential problem ?

I think I can confirm it is a contentious issue, that has been discussed to death in many topics on this forum (most notably in this particular topic: http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=24432).

Whether it is a problem in the real world is another question. Indications I have had are that the problem is sporadic and not widespread.

 

[yorkie]

.situation two, you're correct, if its split at x, and you miss train b, then it is on you basically, because you haven't a throught journey.

NCoC states you can use two or more tickets for ONE journey. (My emphasis!)

you're basically treated as if you got a bus or taxi to that station, and thus it is your fault if you're late...

Have you, or anyone you know, been treated that way? If so, perhaps we can help.

Passenger Focus have stated they will help passengers who are treated this way.

ATOC have not given an adequate response, but let's just say that they don't anticipate TOCs will refuse to honour tickets in such circumstances. They cut short of saying the TOCs are obliged to, but they all but admit that they are really.

 

[monkey]

^^I personally havn't no - but I was under the impression from buying hell of a lot of advance tickets that unless it's through ticket, they won't honour it? I dunno you might know better than me, but I've avoided it for this reason, its bad enough with the restrictions on advance tickets, not to go through the rigmaroll of explaining yourself to often unhelpful ticket inspectors(find tpx are the worst for this) who if they can will charge you for a full price ticket...

I understand you can use two tickets for one journey, but from reading the conditions I was under the impression unlike a through ticket they won't honour it if its a split ticket... if you miss your connection...

 

[glynn80]

NCoC states you can use two or more tickets for ONE journey. (My emphasis!)

yorkie, as you know it is not as simple as that sentence.

Anyone looking for a summary, the best in my opinion was given by ian13:

I think there's some legal points on splitting a journey and missing the connection to try and address. I should mention that I have studied only criminal law, and not contract law, however to the general principles used it should be insignificant.

Matters of fact:

1. Where a term is not defined, it is interpreted in it's ordinary meaning (Whiteley v. Chappel 1868, extended to contract law in Watson v. Phipps 1985). For the term 'journey', it seems fairly apparent that this ordinarily means "the act of traveling from one place to another" in this context. By extension, in two separate documents where the term 'journey' is used without further definition, it will carry identical meaning.
2. NRCoC 19. states: "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and [...] (b) the train you are in calls at the station where you change from one ticket to another [a&c omitted for clarity]"
3. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."
4. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket[...] If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
5. Each ticket is evidence of a contract, to which the T&C's are the NRCoC, the ticket T&C's and any TOC T&C's. There appears to be no reason why this contract cannot be modified though the use of multiple tickets to form a single contract if the T&C's allow/demand.


Issues:

1. We can take 'journey' to have the same meaning, and therefore points 2 & 3 imply that you can continue travelling providing you obeyed the minimum interchanges etc. However, the use of NRCoC 19 in this context is questionable, as the wording of b) implies switching of tickets on the same train, rather than during an interchange (of course, this opens a whole new can of worms). The intention of the conditions appears to be to allow multiple tickets on one train, rather than to allow switching of tickets at a station (as this would naturally be valid under the switching of tickets idea), but as a result does not make it clear as to if switching at a station can constitute a single journey.
2. Point 4 also implies, that as part of the tickets T&Cs, an advance ticket will be invalid if the first train is missed for any reason. Clearly this is badly defined, as one could miss a train due to security alerts, the train leaving/ locking doors early or anything, and the ticket is supposedly invalidated. However, it is not really at question if it is missed under normal circumstances. It would read that the "first train on which you are booked" is the one leaving from your ticket's departure station, and therefore even if the journey is valid, the tickets T&C's are not met if you miss the train due to an earlier part of the contract. This clearly conflicts with the point 3 from the same T&Cs if it can be taken to being a single journey (see NRCoC 19. interpretation concerns above).


To be honest, it's just not clear. It can be interpreted either way, but one cannot explicitly allow it given the problems above. It therefore seems to be that if given the wording a consumer could interpret it to mean it is valid, then it is likely a court would support them, but there is doubt over this.

 

[yorkie]

^^I personally havn't no - but I was under the impression from buying hell of a lot of advance tickets that unless it's through ticket, they won't honour it?

Has anyone said that? if so I can take the matter forward and contact the TOC. A name or position would be useful. It's at odds with what ATOC have said.

I dunno you might know better than me, but I've avoided it for this reason,

I suspect the reason ATOC won't publicly state that they will honour such tickets is to cause FUD which results in people spending more money on through tickets. I suspect this is a major problem but unless I can prove it is, other people won't help me to put a stop to it. Passenger Focus are useless and a replacement is needed.

its bad enough with the restrictions on advance tickets, not to go through the rigmaroll of explaining yourself to often unhelpful ticket inspectors(find tpx are the worst for this) who if they can will charge you for a full price ticket...

Is there a particular case you've had with TransPennine?

I understand you can use two tickets for one journey, but from reading the conditions I was under the impression unlike a through ticket they won't honour it if its a split ticket... if you miss your connection...

Advance conditions state "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."

 

[glynn80]

Advance conditions state "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."

Again I will state, that the whole situation cannot be summed up by that single sentence and I will refer you to the summary given above.

 

[yorkie]

Again I will state, that the whole situation cannot be summed up by that single sentence and I will refer you to the summary given above.

It's not a summary, it's an opinion. An opinion I agree with until it gets toward the end, then I disagree. The idea that the rule stating you have to board the exact trains overrules the rule that you are covered in the event of delays is daft.

The facts are, you can "use more than one ticket for one journey", and "if you are delayed you can complete your journey". Passenger Focus agrees. Even ATOC admit that they don't expect TOCs to prevent passengers completing their journeys! Sadly ATOC don't admit they are obliged to, but that's only to cause FUD, they'd never condone a TOC that left a passenger stranded. The media would love it. Remember the stats for last year? What was it, one case of a passenger not getting their money back after being refused travel? and I suspect that was due to them not leaving sufficient interchange time.

 

[Greenback]

As I could not get an advance ticket from inverness to Llanelli, I have been forced to buy split advance tickets. If my first train is delayed and I miss the second, I don't expect to get charged!!!!

In fact, I have used split advance tickets before and encountered no problem when an evening train was delayed and I missed the second one. I sought help at the station where my tickets switched, and was directed to an alternative train, also late running, which allowed me to get home, no questions asked about my tickets either at the station or on board the last two trains that I had to catch!

 

[monkey]

Has anyone said that? if so I can take the matter forward and contact the TOC. A name or position would be useful. It's at odds with what ATOC have said.

...not as such, but I rarely buy tickets at offices, but when I have it's been implied.

Is there a particular case you've had with TransPennine?

...no but I was on a journey last month from manchester. and there was gentle men on opposite table seat, and only had one part of his 2 part return as he had lost the other while taking stuff out of his pocket while in man.d the tpx guard was a moody so and so, and wasn't exactly friendly (come on its bad enough your forcing him to buy another ticket, even if do think you're doing your job, but a little kindness goes a long way), and told him he had to buy another ticket as its not valid without the other part, even though he had already used that portion as it were on the way there. the guy was none to happy about this, and after bit of discussion eventually paid up... I dumno if this was lawful or not, but does sound rather strange.

but thats probs best left for another tread... just find the ticket inspectors on tpx to be particularly drauconian...

 

[glynn80]

It's not a summary, it's an opinion. An opinion I agree with until it gets toward the end, then I disagree. The idea that the rule stating you have to board the exact trains overrules the rule that you are covered in the event of delays is daft.

ian13 stated both sides of the argument and never claimed any one rule overrode another.

The facts are, you can "use more than one ticket for one journey", and "if you are delayed you can complete your journey".

You fail to mention the other facts posted above I see.

Even ATOC admit that they don't expect TOCs to prevent passengers completing their journeys! Sadly ATOC don't admit they are obliged to, but that's only to cause FUD, they'd never condone a TOC that left a passenger stranded. The media would love it. Remember the stats for last year? What was it, one case of a passenger not getting their money back after being refused travel? and I suspect that was due to them not leaving sufficient interchange time.

But ATOC is run by the TOCs, they are not the supreme authority of them?

For a change in policy like that, it would take a vote by the TSSC, who's membership is comprised wholly of the TOCs.


P.S. I do agree with yorkie's position that the TOCs should confirm validity of split Advance tickets, but I do not agree with his over simplification of the issue that would lead some persons reading this forum into thinking they were safe in the knowledge of one sentence located in the NRCoC. I believe all the facts should be presented so passengers can make their own informed decision.

 

[tony_mac]

P.S. I do agree with yorkie's position that the TOCs should confirm validity of split Advance tickets, but I do not agree with his over simplification of the issue that would lead some persons reading this forum into thinking they were safe in the knowledge of one sentence located in the NRCoC. I believe all the facts should be presented so passengers can make their own informed decision.

That's the most sensible thing that you've said in ages

And why can't they manage the ticketing system so that you can just add legs together to make a single ticket? It's just stupid that people are forced to split advance tickets in the first place! Although there do seem to have been improvements; I can now buy advance tickets from Liverpool to Reading, previously I always had to split them in the midlands.

 

[glynn80]

That's the most sensible thing that you've said in ages

I'm glad we can come to an agreement about something

 

[yorkie]

You fail to mention the other facts posted above I see.

Which were facts? Most of it was opinion. I can quote 2 facts that, combined, have a rather clear meaning to me! If anyone wants to interpret those 2 facts differently then I'd be surprised as it is at odds with what ATOC expect to happen.

For a change in policy like that, it would take a vote by the TSSC, who's membership is comprised wholly of the TOCs.

A change of what policy?

ATOCs policy is that they expect TOCs to honour split advance tickets. They don't admit that the TOCs are obliged to, but they do expect them to!

ATOCs policy in what they believe should happen is fine, and does not need changing. What does need pushing is a statement by ATOC admitting that the TOCs are legally obliged to allow your journey to be completed.

 

[glynn80]

Which were facts? Most of it was opinion. I can quote 2 facts that, combined, have a rather clear meaning to me! If anyone wants to interpret those 2 facts differently then I'd be surprised as it is at odds with what ATOC expect to happen.

The facts have been posted above, you have chosen to only look at 2 of them, there are 2 others that are very relevant.

ATOCs policy is that they expect TOCs to honour split advance tickets. They don't admit that the TOCs are obliged to, but they do expect them to!

ATOCs policy in what they believe should happen is fine, and does not need changing. What does need pushing is a statement by ATOC admitting that the TOCs are legally obliged to allow your journey to be completed.

You seem to still be confused in what exactly ATOC is and how they are run, please read what I have stated above.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm bored with this arguement coming up, it happens too often, thats why I didn't mention it in my post earlier.

Yorkie thinks its fine to consider it one ticket (with all the re-assurances it brings), you are welcome to agree or disagree with it, but don't expect everyone (including the Conductor that may be about to charge you extra) to agree.

I think Glynn and myself (maybe others) agree that there is nothing to confirm it is treated as one ticket, and that we believe there are more complex issues in the case of split 'Advance' fares (feel free to correct me if I am wrong Glynn).

Can we leave this topic as 'unclear' until someone actually confirms which way it is supposed to be?

 

[yorkie]

It is considered one journey.

Only one person was not conveyed on split tickets to their final destination and didn't get their money back last year according to Passenger Focus' statistics. They will fight for justice in such cases. IIRC they won 4 of only 5 cases. There will have been many cases where split tickets were accepted in the event of delays. Only a small number are not accepted by staff who disregard the rule that the customer can complete your journey if you are delayed.

PF won't say why they lost that one case but I suspect it was due to the customer not allowing sufficient interchange time, as this is all too common particularly in the case of cross London transfers.

Someone told me that they allowed about 2 minutes less than the minimum interchange time from Kings Cross to Paddington, their NXEC service was late, they got the 2nd ticket accepted by FGW (at the ticket office as they had time before the next available service). I suspect the person who endorsed it thought it looked like enough time (it almost was!) and didn't check exactly. So he was lucky.

 

[glynn80]

It is considered one journey.

Only one person was not conveyed on split tickets to their final destination and didn't get their money back last year according to Passenger Focus' statistics. They will fight for justice in such cases. IIRC they won 4 of only 5 cases. There will have been many cases where split tickets were accepted in the event of delays. Only a small number are not accepted by staff who disregard the rule that the customer can complete your journey if you are delayed.

PF won't say why they lost that one case but I suspect it was due to the customer not allowing sufficient interchange time, as this is all too common particularly in the case of cross London transfers.

If the problem is so uncommon, why do you continue in your crusade trying to get ATOC to make public statements confirming that all the TOCs they represent will honour such tickets?

Surely there is no need to when such a small number of people ever encounter problems (of which PF are more than capable of dealing with).

 

[route:oxford]

Split tickets are great. I do it at least once a month saving myself £lots.

The best kind, of course, are a split ticket on a single service where an advance purchase ticket can be purchased at a station and the same seat kept for the entire journey.

As for split tickets across multiple single services... I do this too and have missed connecting services due to delays on the income service. I've never had a problem...

Always be sensible about it though.

Ask the "gripper" on the incoming service to put a note on the ticket where possible.
Retain the incoming service ticket at barriers (if you need to kill time on the general concourse).
Speak to the "hosts" at the connection station (where available) to explain your situation.
Try and catch a moment with the "gripper" of the service you are going for *before* boarding.

It takes far less effort to get where you want with open-ness and courtesy rather than quoting rules - it's not the fault of the next "gripper" that the incoming service was late.

 

[yorkie]

If the problem is so uncommon, why do you continue in your crusade trying to get ATOC to make public statements confirming that all the TOCs they represent will honour such tickets?

Because many people are scared to use them due to reasons posted above!

 

[yorksrob]

If the problem is so uncommon, why do you continue in your crusade trying to get ATOC to make public statements confirming that all the TOCs they represent will honour such tickets?

Surely there is no need to when such a small number of people ever encounter problems (of which PF are more than capable of dealing with).

It's not really a question of how common or how uncommon the problem is. If it has been decided that split advanced tickets should be honoured, there shouldn't even be any question as to why TOC's wouldn't want to make public statements confirming that status quo. They should be acheing to make these statements so as to clear up any possible confusion amongst staff and the public so as to avoid unnecessary referrals to Passenger Focus. Unless of course they have an ulterior motive for keeping people in the dark.