Validity of contactless during disruption

[ChewChewTrain]

Let’s say, entirely hypothetically, that there’s significant disruption between London Paddington and Reading, and announcements advise using London Waterloo to Reading instead, and that tickets will be accepted on the latter services.

Contactless is valid on the whole route from Paddington to Reading, but not on the Waterloo route after Feltham. Does “tickets will be accepted on other routes” override this, so that you’re OK
as long as you go all the way to Reading and touch out there (having obviously touched in at Waterloo)?

For various reasons, it seems only proper to me that it should be permitted, but assuming that therefore it must be would be rather naive.

Perhaps I shouldn’t complicate the picture by asking what one should do if their plans change and they want to get off at, say, Ascot…

 

[Horizon22]

Yes you would be fine I would think. If ticket acceptance has been agreed then that would have been through a call to SWR Control who would then disseminate that information to staff on the ground - in this example Waterloo - and you’d be let through.

You might get charged some sort of maximum fare however because you’ve gone “off-system” which you’d have to claim back through TfL (for which they could also check the ticket acceptance for the day and refund you).

Why would they want to get off at Ascot? If that was their intention in the first place, then they should have a ticket for that - the acceptance is only for relevant stations in between. If the journey was for an intermediate one for which the best option is SWR and then a local bus, perhaps that might be more complicated but if all the communications have worked to all operators you should be accepted through. It does rely on an ‘if’ though!

This issue has come up before with regards to planned engineering works for Southeastern too and remains a bit of a grey area in parts.

 

[Snow1964]

TfL always refers to contactless (and mobile pay as you go) as a method to pay fares, they never call it a ticket.

Therefore it isn't a ticket which can be accepted on other routes when they announce tickets are valid. The message is often undermined though by saying tickets accepted on Buses and reasonable routes, which rather dilutes it.

But would probably be better if they changed wording of announcements to tickets accepted, pay as you go isn't if going to be overcharged (or charged max) with no auto refund

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Yes you would be fine I would think. If ticket acceptance has been agreed then that would have been through a call to SWR Control who would then disseminate that information to staff on the ground - in this example Waterloo - and you’d be let through.

You might get charged some sort of maximum fare however because you’ve gone “off-system” which you’d have to claim back through TfL (for which they could also check the ticket acceptance for the day and refund you).

Why would they want to get off at Ascot? If that was their intention in the first place, then they should have a ticket for that - the acceptance is only for relevant stations in between. If the journey was for an intermediate one for which the best option is SWR and then a local bus, perhaps that might be more complicated but if all the communications have worked to all operators you should be accepted through. It does rely on an ‘if’ though!

This issue has come up before with regards to planned engineering works for Southeastern too and remains a bit of a grey area in parts.

Nothing special about Ascot; it’s just the example I chose of a station after Feltham but before Reading. The situation intrigues me since usually you can finish short on non-advance tickets (or “methods to pay fares”!)

The other thing that occurred to me is: other than contactless, wouldn’t it be rather rare to have a ticket that were valid PAD-RDG but not WAT-RDG, given that people would tend to have Travelcards or “London Terminals” tickets, and I don’t think GWR-only fares exist?

 

[miklcct]

Nothing special about Ascot; it’s just the example I chose of a station after Feltham but before Reading. The situation intrigues me since usually you can finish short on non-advance tickets (or “methods to pay fares”!)

The other thing that occurred to me is: other than contactless, wouldn’t it be rather rare to have a ticket that were valid PAD-RDG but not WAT-RDG, given that people would tend to have Travelcards or “London Terminals” tickets, and I don’t think GWR-only fares exist?

There are some tickets which are issued specifically from Paddington to stations on the Great Western Main Line or to the branches.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Practically speaking, what happens if, on a day when there's no disruption, you tap in at Waterloo and then tap out at Reading?

And what difference would you expect when there was disruption? Would this difference realistically be deliverable?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Practically speaking, what happens if, on a day when there's no disruption, you tap in at Waterloo and then tap out at Reading?

And what difference would you expect when there was disruption? Would this difference realistically be deliverable?

My suspicion is that you'd incur two incomplete journey charges, as there's unlikely to be a PAYG fare defined between the two in TfL's fares database.

I believe TfL can set up temporary aliases during disruption, to make a gateline act as if it's at another station. But I don't know how quickly that can be done, nor if TOC gates support it.

 

[JonathanH]

My suspicion is that you'd incur two incomplete journey charges, as there's unlikely to be a PAYG fare defined between the two in TfL's fares database.

There is a Contactless fare between all destinations in the database even if it doesn't appear in the Single Fare Finder.

London Waterloo to Reading should be charged on the mixed mode London Zone 1 to Reading scale, as such a journey could be made via Richmond / Turnham Green / Ealing Broadway - eg £30.40 peak / £14.70 off-peak.

Vauxhall NR to Reading is a defined journey in the single fare finder. The price is the same as from Willesden Junction to Reading avoiding Zone 1 via Gunnersbury. There is a more expensive fare via Waterloo.

 

[JonathanH]

Further to the above, having now made the journey via West Brompton, Reading to London Waterloo is, as expected, charged as £14.70 off-peak, which is the mixed-mode fare from Reading to Zone 1.

Obviously not valid via Staines of course, hence the mixed-mode price.

 

[etr221]

TfL always refers to contactless (and mobile pay as you go) as a method to pay fares, they never call it a ticket.

Therefore it isn't a ticket which can be accepted on other routes when they announce tickets are valid. The message is often undermined though by saying tickets accepted on Buses and reasonable routes, which rather dilutes it.

But would probably be better if they changed wording of announcements to tickets accepted, pay as you go isn't if going to be overcharged (or charged max) with no auto refund

Looking at the NRCoT Appendix B Definitions "Contactless", as "a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card" which is an "electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network", does meet the definition of a "Ticket", which needs to be accepted as advertised, including when announced as valid via alternative route. Dealing correctly with it is then the railway's problem...

While many such issues will be resolved by 'Project Oval' contactless extension to cover many likely alternative routes, hopefully it won't lead to others.