I think the main issue at hand, rather than all this mumbo-jumbo about trading styles and so on, is that Southern is seeking to have GatEx considered to be a separate TOC when it suits it (e.g. for the purpose of ticket restrictions) and not when it doesn't (e.g. in the sense of having a separate board of directors, separate staff, and so on — I am sure if you use a credit card to buy a ticket at a GatEx booking office or on board a train, your statement will show Southern Railway).
-
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!
The Gatwick Express Issue
- Thread starter barrykas
- 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
Why does Gatwick Express still have its own TOC code when it is part of Southern? The Stansted Express does not have a separate code and use the same code as National Express East Anglia, LE. All this does is confuse things as it would give the impression to people not in the know that the Gatwick Express is still a separate TOC.
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
If Gatwick Express is not a train company, then condition 10 does not apply and the NRCoC does not need to be altered to account for it.
There are currently 'rte Not Gatwick Express' fares in the database and available for sale. This may be a legacy from when Gatwick Express was it's own TOC, but they have not been removed. By contrast, ISTR that there were 'rte Gatwick Express only' fares that no longer exist.
A routeing of 'Southern Railway Limited Only Not Gatwick Express Services' (suitably compressed) would comply with the NRCoC in my opinion, but may cause confusion to the travelling public.
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
There is a 'rte AP Caledonian Sleeper' fare already I think.
Route Cal Sleeper means you have paid for a berth, this was opposed to Scotrail Only which was just a normal ticket only valid on Scotrail. I guess it wasn't considered that someone would pay extra for a berth and then not want to use it! However, Scotrail Only was changed to Cal Sleeper Seat. I think that the people responsible for deciding on that route (at Scotrail, presumably) are not properly considering Condition 10 of the NRCoC and they should re-name them. Arguably they should be Route: Scotrail Seat, and Scotrail Sleeper.
That would avoid all confusion and be genuinely simple, therefore it won't be done.
That would avoid all confusion and be genuinely simple, therefore it won't be done.
The quicker the industry seeks to update the ticket layout to allow smaller text/longer text the better.
Most of the modern printers print an image, made to look like a standard ticket design, so they could be changed instantly with new software.
Older printers will eventually be upgraded.
In the meantime, you update the software to have a long-text field and a 16-character (or whatever) field for backward compatibility. Then you say that over the next 6, 12, 18, 24 months or whatever you'll be improving the ticketing system to convey more information (such as restrictions with proper explanations instead of codes).
You can then keep the same ticketing and fare structures for now, but when all tickets are now printed in the new layout (possibly with an area for a QR Code to allow scanning) you can then introduce new fares and deals that can take advantage of the layout.
Otherwise a system developed in the 1980s will continue forever. Even with smartcards, paper tickets aren't going anywhere for longer journeys and more expensive fares where a smartcard may not be suitable or widely accepted (by the public) yet.
Most of the modern printers print an image, made to look like a standard ticket design, so they could be changed instantly with new software.
Older printers will eventually be upgraded.
In the meantime, you update the software to have a long-text field and a 16-character (or whatever) field for backward compatibility. Then you say that over the next 6, 12, 18, 24 months or whatever you'll be improving the ticketing system to convey more information (such as restrictions with proper explanations instead of codes).
You can then keep the same ticketing and fare structures for now, but when all tickets are now printed in the new layout (possibly with an area for a QR Code to allow scanning) you can then introduce new fares and deals that can take advantage of the layout.
Otherwise a system developed in the 1980s will continue forever. Even with smartcards, paper tickets aren't going anywhere for longer journeys and more expensive fares where a smartcard may not be suitable or widely accepted (by the public) yet.
my bold and italics
As someone who's late father was partially sighted I must oppose this. The print clarity of some TVM produced tickets (for some reason doesn't seem to apply to tickets from booking offices of the same company - different machines or printers?) is not great anyway.
Paul Kelly
Verified Rep - BR Fares
I used to think that too, but don't any longer. It seems clear to me that (not counting geographical routeing restrictions, which are handled separately in condition 13 (d)), condition 10 permits restrictions to be no more fine-grained than at the level of either permitting or excluding all the services of particular TOCs. The way it is worded it does not permit exclusion or inclusion of particular services or sub-brands operated by an individual TOC. I have a hunch that this is by design, perhaps to try and minimise customer confusion?
I completely agree.
Presumably it's because merging the former separate GatEx franchise with Southern was messed up. Whether accidentally or deliberately I don't know!
Moving on to the ticket printing, I agree that there isn't much scope to reduce the font size and retain good legibility. There is a wide variation in print quality, which would need addressing before a reduction in font size should be considered, in my opinion.
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
If it applies to all the services of a TOC, then the condition doesn't apply here because Gatwick Express is not all the services. If it does not apply to all the services then noting 'Not Gatwick Express' complies with it.
Surely the issue is that Gatwick express with its premium fares was one of the only truly profitable rail operations in that it covered all of its infrastructure and running costs. The Dft merged it with the Southern Franchise so the subsidy to Southern could be reduced. If its premium fares base is undermined Southern are going to require more subsidy.That is either going to require nore input from taxpayers or more likely Cut backs elswhere.
Personally I would prefer a way to be found for the airport users to coninue to pay the subsidy.
Personally I would prefer a way to be found for the airport users to coninue to pay the subsidy.
Last edited:
I don't think the Gatwick Express really has premium fares as such. Normal tickets are valid on it in the same way as any other service, and indeed that was the case when it was a TOC.
There is an issue with the fares between London & Gatwick being about as farcical and confusing as you can possibly get, and the lack of an "Any Permitted" CDR (which is available from places like Three Bridges to London Terminals and yes, you can start "short"), and the new franchise is/was an opportunity to standardise that.
Many people are paying more than they should be paying for Gatwick <> London, but only in the rail industry is this seen as acceptable and a loss to the business if the overcharging is reduced or eliminated.
Yes, if you combine a premium TOC with a loss making TOC, you can reduce the loss, but would would happen anyway without combining them so my understanding is this wasn't the reason for the single franchise. The main reason was to make better use of paths and stock. The Government wanted (and perhaps still want) to completely eliminate the Gatwick Express but there was a lot of opposition at the loss of a service that was aimed at a minority of the market.
The reality is that these trains carry many more empty seats than full seats - except of course at times when they run through to Brighton! You can very easily get a coach to yourself on most trains.
The service is in a state of limbo while the Government can't really decide what to do with it. So the wasting of paths, the ludicrous crossing over multiple lines at Gatwick, the fresh air being carted around, the passengers being ripped-off, and the poor platform utilisation at Gatwick, all continue for now.. except at peak hours.
There is an issue with the fares between London & Gatwick being about as farcical and confusing as you can possibly get, and the lack of an "Any Permitted" CDR (which is available from places like Three Bridges to London Terminals and yes, you can start "short"), and the new franchise is/was an opportunity to standardise that.
Many people are paying more than they should be paying for Gatwick <> London, but only in the rail industry is this seen as acceptable and a loss to the business if the overcharging is reduced or eliminated.
Yes, if you combine a premium TOC with a loss making TOC, you can reduce the loss, but would would happen anyway without combining them so my understanding is this wasn't the reason for the single franchise. The main reason was to make better use of paths and stock. The Government wanted (and perhaps still want) to completely eliminate the Gatwick Express but there was a lot of opposition at the loss of a service that was aimed at a minority of the market.
The reality is that these trains carry many more empty seats than full seats - except of course at times when they run through to Brighton! You can very easily get a coach to yourself on most trains.
The service is in a state of limbo while the Government can't really decide what to do with it. So the wasting of paths, the ludicrous crossing over multiple lines at Gatwick, the fresh air being carted around, the passengers being ripped-off, and the poor platform utilisation at Gatwick, all continue for now.. except at peak hours.
Paul Kelly
Verified Rep - BR Fares
I don't think the routeing restriction "NOT GATWICK EXPRESS" has complied with condition 10 since Gatwick Express ceased to exist as a TOC. I agree with Greenback that it looks like the merger of Gatwick Express and Southern was messed up or not throught through with regard to these things.
That maybe part of the problem. When proposals to change the GEx were first floated a few years one of my local councillors (now my MP) campaigned heavily to keep it as a dedicated service. I argued with him that Brighton line services could be much improved if GEx was scrapped but he was adamant that the existence of the service was critical to the fortunes of the Crawley/Gatwick economy.
Older printers are rubbish. Dot matrix systems should all be scrapped. Looking back to when I printed an amateur magazine with a dot matrix printer (24 pin I seem to recall!), they were awful even when they were new!
The newer thermal ones are fine, and quick to print, and if you use the right font and bold type - you can make things a lot clearer. Tickets also have quite a bit of white space, so I'm convinced you could get an additional line on with more detail - as well as longer names.
I didn't really mean smaller text as in a smaller point, but more like a different font like 'xxxx narrow'. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to read tiny text, so apologies for not making that clearer (sic).
It would need to be phased in. Any old systems would have to print the tickets the old way, without the enhanced data. What you'd be doing is making all new (or recent) systems, with modern printers that can print anything, able to add more detail and replace certain text with the 'alternative' descriptions.
Eventually you'll have few old machines left - so enthusiasts will travel the country trying to get the last of the current tickets! Finally, we'll have an improvement with minimal cost, as we have to assume that all systems will be updated at some point. Given the lifetime of some of these systems, do we want to have the same tickets in use for another 10-15 years?
Last edited:
I suggested before that you can print information on the back, but I am not sure any ticket machines can do that. This would mean replacing everything, but it is certainly a good idea - and could be done in conjunction with a facelift of the information on the front. I'm not talking about anything too radical (like the websites giving ideas for next-gen tickets, showing real-time running info, timetables, weather forecasts or whatever) - just doing away with a system that allows limited characters that give us complicated and vague abbreviations.
If anyone thinks that printing on the back removes potential advertising revenue; it won't. It will make it easier to sell advertising, even if it's smaller, as people now have a reason to turn the ticket over to read information.
If anyone thinks that printing on the back removes potential advertising revenue; it won't. It will make it easier to sell advertising, even if it's smaller, as people now have a reason to turn the ticket over to read information.
I have to say I think this is getting a bit much now. The terms quite clearly state TOC, and quite clearly define TOC. To take any other view would be to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
Without knowing the geography very well is there some way in which a geographical route could solve this issue? Are there any avoiding lines or such in use which could enable eg a "NOT REDHILL" routing?
For any such condition to be valid it has to be printed on the ticket, as per NRCoC, condtion 10. Presupposing that Gatwick Express is a TOC of course.....:roll:
John @ home
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Messages
- 5,148
Sorry, route "NOT REDHILL" wouldn't work. Some, but not all, Southern trains (exc. Gatwick Express) go via Redhill. Most FCC trains avoid Redhill but a few stop there. Some Gatwick Express services go via Redhill, especially on Sundays.
A route "NOT REDHILL" ticket would re-introduce the same problems we had in Yorkshire when there was a 2359 non-stop Sheffield - Leeds service. The booking engines wouldn't sell you the usual route "NOT DONCASTER" ticket for this service. There were about a dozen routes this service could take and the route chosen on any particular night depended on the location of overnight engineering works and the driver's need for route knowledge refreshing. About three of the routes went via Doncaster. But the service was timed for the longest possible route, which was via Doncaster, so you could never buy the cheaper route "NOT DONCASTER" ticket online.
Until someone buys one we can't be sure.
The Downlander is misleading - it is advertised as valid on all Southern trains and the Terms do not give any such restriction on the page where you buy the ticket, only if you click on a link that lists the full Terms does it get a mention! But given that they list terms on a page that you have to visit, who is then going to click a separate link for full terms? If it says all southern trains you don't expect a hidden restriction giving exceptions. What is printed on the ticket remains to be seen.
Why can't the industry be made to give 'key facts' that would include all of the things you'd really need to know, before making a purchase?
A lot of the T&Cs are pretty standard legal things that don't directly affect you unless things go wrong, or to cover the TOC etc.
Suddenly mentioning you can't use a ticket on certain trains is worthy of being a requirement in such key facts presented before you can buy it.
A lot of the T&Cs are pretty standard legal things that don't directly affect you unless things go wrong, or to cover the TOC etc.
Suddenly mentioning you can't use a ticket on certain trains is worthy of being a requirement in such key facts presented before you can buy it.
Do you mean "Key Facts" as in the scheme that the insurance industry uses?
If so, I think it is a very worthy idea.
I suppose one problem is defining what a "Key Fact" actually is!
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I guess that the test (of whether the restriction must be made clear before buying or not) is in how it affects the passenger.
It they are adversely affected by Southern simply not providing services at reasonable times which ARE valid, then the Company would probably fail the test.
But if they operate adequate services on other trains, and the 'requirement' is simply one of advising passengers which trains qualify for which tickets and which are exempt, then they may be failing in following up the restriction with adequate information, but they may NOT fail the test at the point of sale.
Its a pedantic, but crucial distinction.
- Status