I've a feeling this has been discussed in the past, but I can't find the thread. Can anyone explain how the fares on the St Ives branch in Cornwall are set up? This week I got on at Lelant Saltings to go to St Ives. The conductor told me that the fare was £3.00 with no reduction for card-bearing old codgers. I asked him what if I had got on at Hayle and he told me that would be £1.90 for a day return (with the senior discount). He sold me that cheaper fare, but only because I had asked for it; he wasn't supposed to volunteer that information. Can someone explain how we got into this particular situation?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
St Ives branch fares
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
That's correct, that's the rules of the Ticketing Settlement Agreement I believe.
If you are aware of a cheaper ticket for a further journey, or a combination of tickets splitting at a station en route, you need to ask for it. Anyone who sells tickets is not obliged to volunteer that information, and strictly speaking is not even allowed to volunteer that information.
If the guard had told you about it without you asking and you turned out to be a mystery shopper, he could be facing disciplinary action. I agree that they should not be obliged to offer it, but to not allow them to offer it is disgusting, but that's the rules!
If you want someone to blame, and to know who got us in the situation, I'd blame the Tories back in the mid 1990s for the way in which privatisation was implemented.
I could give loads of examples where it is cheaper to go further, however in this case it is because Railcards are not valid on the branch. An act that may be illegal - anyone got a few thousand quid to spare to see ATOC in court? I'd love to see it...
If you are aware of a cheaper ticket for a further journey, or a combination of tickets splitting at a station en route, you need to ask for it. Anyone who sells tickets is not obliged to volunteer that information, and strictly speaking is not even allowed to volunteer that information.
If the guard had told you about it without you asking and you turned out to be a mystery shopper, he could be facing disciplinary action. I agree that they should not be obliged to offer it, but to not allow them to offer it is disgusting, but that's the rules!
If you want someone to blame, and to know who got us in the situation, I'd blame the Tories back in the mid 1990s for the way in which privatisation was implemented.
I could give loads of examples where it is cheaper to go further, however in this case it is because Railcards are not valid on the branch. An act that may be illegal - anyone got a few thousand quid to spare to see ATOC in court? I'd love to see it...
So whose decision was it to prevent Senior Railcards being usable, and on what basis?
It was actually Wessex Trains that scrapped normal single/return tickets on the St Ives Bay Line, and replaced it with a St Ives Bay Line Day Ranger and a 'One Stop Hop.' See this thread.
I'm surprised you couldn't use a Railcard as both The Manual and National Rail say there is a Railcard discount on the St Ives Bay Line Day Ranger.
I'm surprised you couldn't use a Railcard as both The Manual and National Rail say there is a Railcard discount on the St Ives Bay Line Day Ranger.
devon_metro
Established Member
Many fares were not protected at privatization and so the TOCs started scrapping Cheap Day Returns and Super Savers on some routes so they could get more profit for their shareholders.
The fares on the St Ives Bay Line were regulated, however under Community Rail (and the predecessor scheme, used on the St Ives Bay Line), derogation of fare regulation on certain routes are allowed. This is nothing to do with policies at privatisation but actually policies implemented by the Labour Government and backed up by the local authority. So if you want someone to blame - blame the Government for allowing fares deregulation (Labour) and whoever was in charge of Cornwall County Council at the time for supporting it.
Also, this is nothing about making extra profit (you do not make that much money in transport these days, although many ex-BR managers made a mint through management buy outs over 10 years ago), but ensuring you can pay your dues and reduce your subsidy required from the Government.
Also, this is nothing about making extra profit (you do not make that much money in transport these days, although many ex-BR managers made a mint through management buy outs over 10 years ago), but ensuring you can pay your dues and reduce your subsidy required from the Government.
Read the question! :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
The Tories directly influenced Wessex Trains introducing a ranger ticket then??
Yes, but it's nothing to do with how privatisation was implemented, if you want someone to blame then it's the fault of the SRA (or whoever it was at the time) for allowing derogation, and the County Council for supporting it.
If the fares had been ADEQUATELY protected at the time of privatisation then this would not have happened, so ultimately the method of privatisation was to blame.
However the question was "He sold me that cheaper fare, but only because I had asked for it; he wasn't supposed to volunteer that information. Can someone explain how we got into this particular situation?" and I answered it. It IS the way privatisation was implemented that is to blame for "allowing us to get into this particular situation" where the guard is "not supposed to volunteer that information" that a fare is cheaper for a longer journey.
The St Ives branch is just one of MANY flows where it is cheaper for a longer journey, and the fact that the guards / ticket clerks cannot advise passengers of this fact is a result of the method of privatisation.
Labour could have re-nationalised, or they could have proposed changes to the privatised railway, they could have nipped the daft fares in the bud, but they didn't. So they are not totally blameless. But the creators of the LUDICROUS ticketing system that we have are the Tories!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's 9am and I am at Wolverhampton and I ask for a return ticket to Manchester. I am asked for £53, and pay it. The person in the queue next to me asks for Huddersfield, changing at Manchester and is asked to pay £34.70. I ask the clerk why he did not advise me of that. He says he is not allowed to offer it, but if I ask I can have it, but if I want to change it now it's a £10 admin fee so I'd still be paying £44.70. Can the Tory supporters here find some way to blame Labour for that?
I am at York and want to use the 8:49 service to Doncaster, returning tomorrow. I am asked for £19.30. I think that's a bit steep so ask for Sheffield, and state I will be getting off at Doncaster anyway, and I am told that it's only £18.80. I ask why I wasn't told that, I am told that I have to ask for it, I cannot be offered it. How did this situation come about? Come on Tories, do give an honest answer!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Two people board a train at Poppleton going to Bramley and ask to return the next day. They are told singles are £11 each way but if they buy to New Pudsey it's only £14.30 return, so they buy that and thank the guard. An ATOC mystery shopper overhears the conversation, reports the guard who is then disciplined. The guard then never gives such advice again and customers are then paying more than they should. Who is to blame for these rules? That's right, the Tories.
I could give many more examples. The fact is the ticketing rules are a farce and the Tories did implement them at the time of privitisation.
Have fares been adequately protected?
NO! CDRs are not protected at all! SVRs are protected but the protection is worthless as all that was protected was the price, and the TOCs have been allowed to introduce draconian restrictions.
The OP asked two questions.
The first question was how the fares on the branch are set up, and the answer is on a flat fare basis with no discounts.
The second question was about the guard not being allowed to advise of a cheaper ticket, and the customer having to ask for it. It is the Tories who are to blame for this, because of the way they privatised the railways. There are MANY examples of this, and it has nothing to do with the protecting of fares (or, rather, lack of) however the existence of anomalies is often due to the inadequate protection of fares.
The Wolverhampton-Manchester fare I gave in my example is supposedly "protected" but that is an absolute JOKE, as the ridiculous "protection" has allowed their conditions to be changed so that, I would argue, the "protected" product is nothing like the product that was originally "protected". That's not protection at all. The York-Doncaster example is where a more expensive ticket (more expensive than Sheffield) was introduced, under the name of the old "protected" product, while the "protected" product was re-named and given different restrictions. Is that the Tory idea of "protection"? It's a joke!
So the next time the Tories talk about "protecting", I'll know that they can't be trusted.
NO! CDRs are not protected at all! SVRs are protected but the protection is worthless as all that was protected was the price, and the TOCs have been allowed to introduce draconian restrictions.
The OP asked two questions.
The first question was how the fares on the branch are set up, and the answer is on a flat fare basis with no discounts.
The second question was about the guard not being allowed to advise of a cheaper ticket, and the customer having to ask for it. It is the Tories who are to blame for this, because of the way they privatised the railways. There are MANY examples of this, and it has nothing to do with the protecting of fares (or, rather, lack of) however the existence of anomalies is often due to the inadequate protection of fares.
The Wolverhampton-Manchester fare I gave in my example is supposedly "protected" but that is an absolute JOKE, as the ridiculous "protection" has allowed their conditions to be changed so that, I would argue, the "protected" product is nothing like the product that was originally "protected". That's not protection at all. The York-Doncaster example is where a more expensive ticket (more expensive than Sheffield) was introduced, under the name of the old "protected" product, while the "protected" product was re-named and given different restrictions. Is that the Tory idea of "protection"? It's a joke!
So the next time the Tories talk about "protecting", I'll know that they can't be trusted.
The Manual says there should be Railcard discounts on the St Ives Bay Line Ranger, but NRES says there is not.
There is also a restriction on the Ranger, that it isn't valid before 09.00, but I can't find anything to say what the fare is before 09.00.
The real blame lies with the current Government who have actually had to deal with these changes that did not happen exactly at the time of privatisation; if any blame is due it is due with the current Government, but for once this is a good thing that Whitehall are not meddling with the system, afterall it is their constant interference which is holding back the railways and really increasing its costs.
There is also a restriction on the Ranger, that it isn't valid before 09.00, but I can't find anything to say what the fare is before 09.00.
The real blame lies with the current Government who have actually had to deal with these changes that did not happen exactly at the time of privatisation; if any blame is due it is due with the current Government, but for once this is a good thing that Whitehall are not meddling with the system, afterall it is their constant interference which is holding back the railways and really increasing its costs.
Problems which may not exist if:
* ATOC was never given a role that is allowing them to effectively act as a regulator.
* CDR fares were adequately protected at privatisation
* There was no secret "Manual" and instead there was one, public fares database. The idea that there can be a secret fares database that we cannot see, with more restrictive rules, than the public version is disgraceful and shameful. ATOC should not have been given the role of maintaining the fares database, and the TOCs should not have been allowed to make such sweeping changes. The fares should be in the public domain and maintained in the public sector.
* A common set of rules that TOCs must adhere to should have been introduced at privatisation, and TOCs should be forced to use Plain English when setting terms, and barred from using unfair or conflicting terms.
It would have been achievable to sort the mess of railway ticketing if it was done at privatisation, but to achieve it now would be a massive task, and requires bold leadership by the Government to take powers off ATOC. Sadly Labour failed to act and we have continued with the mess left by the Tories
Don't forget the Super Saver, this used to give relatively cheap walk-on travel on off peak services. The TOCs one by one abolished this ticket and made Savers more restricted at the time they claimed this was simply a fares simplifications. Now Super Off Peak tickets have been re-introduced at the same price Savers were but more heavily restricted and the cost of the Savers has increased even more.
Absolutely.Your point about the re-introduction of Super Off Peaks of a similar restrictive price to the old Super Savers but at much higher prices is a very good example of fare rises through the back door that many (not all) TOCs have implemented, because the "protection" of fares was so ridiculously weak and ineffective. Protection isn't protection if the product terms are not protected.
It's like a rule that states that all fish & chip shops must sell a bag of chips for no more than £1 in 1994 prices + the rate of inflation + 1%. If the fish & chip shops wanted to charge more, all they'd do is reduce the number of chips. Anyone with any sense could surely see that. So why didn't the Tories? Well I think they knew it was worthless but just wanted to be able to say they were "protected" to shut anti-privatisation people up at the time, it was an empty promise as SVRs are not really protected by any sane definition.
It's not much but at least there is still some regulation on them. I just hope the TOCs don't convince the government to remove the remainig regulation as then on some routes the only options could be booking in advance or paying for a Standard Open Return.
It wouldn;t surprise me if they did that. The government would then quote the cheapest advance fares ad say rail travel has never been cheaper, and the TOC's would be delighted with all the half empty trains of people paying top whack! Less busy trains would equal less cleaning, less fuel costs and so on!
You remind me of the guy the other day who said he could never vote Tory because of the mess that Hague and IDS had left the country in.....
Since you obviously missed it, Labour have been in power for 13 years. In every single privatisation, British Gas, BT, water, electricity, the system was tinkered with by the government after privatisation, in order to iron out flaws and anomalies. The exception is the railways, where Labour has generally failed to act on matters like this, so that they can continue blaming everything that goes wrong on the Tories, instead of taking responsibility themselves.
Since you obviously missed it
this is what I had to say about Labour:yorkie said:
I agree! And the longer it goes on, the harder it's going to be to reverse the awful changes that the botched privatisation brought about.
Because they are available on fewer services than the SSR were over the week?
Indeed, I remember using a Super Saver on certain trains before 2006 and now they are not valid. What FGW did in 2006 was scrap the Super Saver forcing anyone that wanted flexible travel to pay 15% more. At the time it was claimed this was a fares simplification. Last year the price of the Saver was hiked 20% and the Super Saver re-introduced at the previous Saver price.
Fair enough, I didn't work railway when had them, I just remember using them, and being unable to come back on a Friday, it was the main thing that for me stood out.
Yes, when I was a student I studiously avoided travelling on Fridays (soory for the awful pun!). I thought it was unfair that you had to pay more to go home for the weekend!
Now, of course, I am more enlightened, and can see how daft it would be to sell cheaper tickets when demand is higher! I suppose I;d find it better today that I could travel on some trains at a lower fare on a Friday, but compared to the position under BR, and ignoring Advance fares which are useless for a lot of travellers, thenw e are undoubtedly worse off now!
A lot worse off. Look at how cheap SuperSavers were compared to even Super Off Peak tickets now. And the Savers that were valid on Fridays were unrestricted from London at peak times, so a York to London Saver was valid at peak time on a Friday. Now the equivalent product, renamed Off Peak, is nearly twice the price! The Super Off Peak costs significantly more than the old Saver, let alone the old SuperSaver!
The TOCs have totally screwed us, and they have got away with it because of the lack of protection/regulation on the fares. The Saver products were not really protected at all. The price is regulated but a vastly inferior product can be introduced at that price so it utterly defeats the object.
The TOCs have totally screwed us, and they have got away with it because of the lack of protection/regulation on the fares. The Saver products were not really protected at all. The price is regulated but a vastly inferior product can be introduced at that price so it utterly defeats the object.
Quite right Yorkie. Fares 'simplification' must have been the biggest scam ever! And it was all sold to us as beneficial to us, the customer! What's even worse is that I can't see any way out of this mess!
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,452
What gave the TOCs permission is the government's stance that it is a perfectly legitimate way to price people off the railways as the investment in infrustructure cannot keep up with demographic changes. What happened to the lengthening of platforms to accommodate 15-car trains in and out of Waterloo? Oh no let's blame it all on the immigrants flocking into this country. Labour has no idea about how to run the railways efficiently, no more than the Tories.
- Status