XC stop split tickets? Advice please..

[simonm]

Work colleague was travelling from Exeter to Birmingham for work on Monday and I told her to split her ticket at Bristol to save. She bought a combination of advance tickets but on the SAME train (just different seats). When she got on the train, the XC guard said "They've stopped you doing that, you'll have to get off and get the one behind". He was quite blunt about this and bordering on rude with this.
Is this real or have they imposed some kind of minimum connections for split tickets? In the end she got off and paid some kind of penalty fare on the one behind (not sure what as don't have details). I just need to give advice as she is going to complain and just wondered about the split ticketing.

To complicate matters she had a ticket on a train which was not running due to the Bridgwater/Taunton issue and had to get one an hour later - could this be the cause?

 

[Greenback]

It's nonsense. Complain to XC, and if they try and say it is true (I've heard some horror stories about incorrect information being provided to train crew by XC, so nothing would surprise me) escalate it.

As much as XC don't like split tickets because they think they are being depived of revenue that is rightfully theirs, it is their own fault for being greedy and charging too much for the through tickets. And there is nothing they can do without significant changes to the NCoC.

If your colleague wants to avoid such hassles in the future, the best thing to do would be to just show one Advance ticket at a time.

 

[PG]

At first glance it sounds like incredibly poor/wrong advice to your work colleague and contrary to the NRCoC - the only thing possibly confusing the issue seems to be that one of the Advance tickets was for a train that was no longer operating due to the Bridgwater/Taunton issue.

I'd be interested to hear what other, more knowledgeable, forum members think of this as to my mind your colleague has reasonable grounds to query this with XC.

 

[Greenback]

I'm keen to find out who 'they' are supposed to be, and how you can get the train behind if an Advance ticket is restricted to the booked train?

My instinct is that there is either some confusion in the briefings given to staff about the Taunton/Bridgewater situation, or XC are deliberately taking advantage of this to try and make a point.

Either way, it would be impossible to do what the TM said if a normal timetable was in operation.

 

[PermitToTravel]

If she had an advance ticket for a train, and was kicked off that train before the start of said ticket and told to get on the train behind, she should refuse to pay anything, and should sue XC for any amount she has already paid.

Next time, she should not get off, and should consider nutting the conductor.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe the passenger should have asked to be shown in NRCoC where it says split ticketing has been stopped, given NRCoC clearly states you're allowed to use a ticket or a combination of tickets valid for your journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Next time, she should not get off, and should consider nutting the conductor.

Well if the conductor reported her to the police then the conductor should be charged with wasting police time, if she followed your advice she'd be arrested if the conductor called the police.

 

[PG]

...
Next time, she should not get off, and should consider nutting the conductor.

Regardless of the situation comments like the above are distinctly unhelpful

 

[SS4]

That's a steaming pile of manure. If it happens again ask for it in writing with the person's name/ID number, the date and time on it. Often people are more reluctant to give duff advice when there is evidence!

 

[Flamingo]

Are you sure it was for the same train? The only reason I could see a guard telling her to get off and catch the train behind is if that is the one the ticket is valid on.

 

[Starmill]

If she had an advance ticket for a train, and was kicked off that train before the start of said ticket and told to get on the train behind, she should refuse to pay anything, and should sue XC for any amount she has already paid.

Next time, she should not get off, and should consider nutting the conductor.

Indeed, having one member of staff tell you one thing and the next one you meet tell you the exact opposite is about as frustrating as it gets -it happens to me with astonishing frequency! The fact that the second member of staff tried to charge you then just adds insult to injury.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Well if the conductor reported her to the police then the conductor should be charged with wasting police time, if she followed your advice she'd be arrested if the conductor called the police.

Regardless of the situation comments like the above are distinctly unhelpful

Just in case it wasn't clear, that was a joke.

Are you sure it was for the same train? The only reason I could see a guard telling her to get off and catch the train behind is if that is the one the ticket is valid on.

That could be a possibility, but it wouldn't explain the OP's colleague paying "some kind of penalty fare" on the train behind, and it wouldn't explain the conductor saying that XC have "stopped you doing that"

Indeed, having one member of staff tell you one thing and the next one you meet tell you the exact opposite is about as frustrating as it gets -it happens to me with astonishing frequency! The fact that the second member of staff tried to charge you then just adds insult to injury.

Unfortunately, you need to know which one is correct and which one to ignore as appropriate. If they get it wrong, they might get a slap on the wrist at worst/best (more likely, no one will care), whereas if you get it wrong you could end up with a criminal record.

 

[bb21]

Just in case it wasn't clear, that was a joke.

Adding a smilie would be useful if there is potential for it to be misread.

In the end she got off and paid some kind of penalty fare on the one behind (not sure what as don't have details).

I am interested to know exactly what that is.

 

[Greenback]

Just in case it wasn't clear, that was a joke.

It wasn't clear. As bb21 says, add a smile or a wink.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Done

 

[Starmill]

...the conductor should be charged with wasting police time...

Ha! Like THAT would ever happen!

 

[bb21]

Ha! Like THAT would ever happen!

It has happened before.

 

[RJ]

Maybe the passenger should have asked to be shown in NRCoC where it says split ticketing has been stopped, given NRCoC clearly states you're allowed to use a ticket or a combination of tickets valid for your journey.

That strategy depends on the guard's personality. They'll either listen and reason, or not listen and dismiss you as a smart-arse for disagreeing with them by putting forward your case.

 

[Searle]

It has happened before.

I think that was a joke too

 

[Bungle]

Travelled recently with XC from Chesterfield to Durham with an en-route split at York, saving about 50% over the cheapest through ticket. The TM just smiled and said "fair enough. Derby and Sheffield are also good places for that." No "nutting" required

I don't think they CAN stop splitting can they? As someone else alluded to, wouldn't it infringe the NRCoC?

 

[LexyBoy]

"They" don't need to stop split tickets being valid, spreading FUD will do the job nicely. People will hear of stories like this and avoid doing anything they see as dodgy - like splitting, or stopping short, or travelling on a train that might be "peak" - because they don't want to get into a dispute, or find the T&Cs too complex.

XC definitely have a bee in their bonnet on split tickets, and have either been distributing poorly-worded memos to staff, or have some overzealous TMs. There have definitely been reminders that splits at stations where the train doesn't call are not valid, as I have had my 19(c) split challenged several times on XC, so it may be that the message has got jumbled somewhere. Either way, very poor show in the OP's case.

The industry attitude seems to be that it's better that passengers are fearful they will be fined if they do anything wrong, rather than making their products more attractive by promoting flexibility (this is by no means unique to the rail industry). A while ago, a colleague - who disliked public transport in general - took the train from Banbury to work in Didcot in order that he could have a few beers after hours. We were going to the pub in Oxford after work, so he asked if he could buy a Banbury-Didcot ticket (which would be a SDR) and stop off in Oxford on the way back. He was told that he would be fined if he did so and had to buy 3 seperate tickets, which undoubtedly fed his conviction that rail travel is a rip off, full of traps, and best avoided.

 

[4SRKT]

Surely the answer to all of this is for pax to only ever show the ticket that is valid at the point the grip asks for it? This removes any ambiguity at all, and happily would mean that splitting could simply continue even if the NRCoC were amended.

 

[bb21]

That will not necessarily work with a 19(c) or 19(a) split, as the train does not necessarily stop at the point of changing from one ticket to the other. For a 19(b) split as in this case, it is a good solution, although I have encountered guards previously who preferred to be shown all tickets in one go rather than gripping one each time he comes around. You just never know.

 

[4SRKT]

although I have encountered guards previously who preferred to be shown all tickets in one go rather than gripping one each time he comes around. You just never know.

As we so often hear when it is passengers breaking the rules, the actions of a minority spoil it for everyone! Touche!

And in my experience of doing this when the grip comes round again he usually remembers that he's seen me, and infers that I must have had a ticket because he didn't kick me off, but presuamably can't remember what the ticket was so very rarely asks a second time.

 

[Greenback]

XC definitely have a bee in their bonnet on split tickets, and have either been distributing poorly-worded memos to staff, or have some overzealous TMs. There have definitely been reminders that splits at stations where the train doesn't call are not valid, as I have had my 19(c) split challenged several times on XC, so it may be that the message has got jumbled somewhere. Either way, very poor show in the OP's case.

When they took over the franchise, Arriva forecast their revenue without giving a lot of consideration to the possibility of split tickets. They also thought that their spiffing plans to introduce blanket restrictions on many flows would bring them in a certain amount of additional revenue. What it has done instead, however, is focus many passengers minds on how to avoid the outrageously high fares in a perfectly legal manner.

I'm not surprised XC don't like this. It's hurt their bottom line, even though it was their own fault for not thinking their ideas through properly when they were bidding.

As for the memo side, my sources inside the company indicate that it is a bit of both. There are a few over zealous TM's, but the majority are fair minded and unable to fathom out the intricacies of XC's memo's that are often confusing and contradictory, at least to the recipients, anyway!

 

[andypops]

I find this action by XC interesting, as I have recently had a few interesting looks from guards on ATW services when using split tickets (under NRCoC rule 19(b) and not advance purchase), and have indeed considered adopting the policy of showing only the ticket valid for travel at the place and time it's asked for.

Perhaps any anti-split directive is across the Arriva group, and not just XC?

 

[RJ]

As for the memo side, my sources inside the company indicate that it is a bit of both. There are a few over zealous TM's, but the majority are fair minded and unable to fathom out the intricacies of XC's memo's that are often confusing and contradictory, at least to the recipients, anyway!

That doesn't surprise me - briefs and memos ought to be checked by someone who understands both the subject matter and how the message can be communicated effectively to the recipients, before they are distributed.

When I worked for a different TOC, a brief did go out on split ticketing in response to the publicity on the matter generated by Money Saving Expert. It basically stated that passengers should be charged as appropriate if they didn't comply with Condition 19b and dispelled myths about a requirement for passengers to get off the train at the point of changing tickets. I can't recall any comments about 19a or 19c splits.

 

[34D]

Work colleague was travelling from Exeter to Birmingham for work on Monday and I told her to split her ticket at Bristol to save. She bought a combination of advance tickets but on the SAME train (just different seats). When she got on the train, the XC guard said "They've stopped you doing that, you'll have to get off and get the one behind". He was quite blunt about this and bordering on rude with this.
Is this real or have they imposed some kind of minimum connections for split tickets? In the end she got off and paid some kind of penalty fare on the one behind (not sure what as don't have details). I just need to give advice as she is going to complain and just wondered about the split ticketing.

To complicate matters she had a ticket on a train which was not running due to the Bridgwater/Taunton issue and had to get one an hour later - could this be the cause?

I think this illustrates why split tickets/dodgy routings should NOT be suggested to anyone who is not a rail enthusiast/ticket student.

I am sure you are 100% correct, however issues such as this show how recommending savings to work colleague/sister/best friend/uncles pet dog is not a good idea. Put simply: normal people don't want conflict or ticket discussions.

 

[maniacmartin]

This is hardly a "dodgy routing". It sounds like a normal split that's directly mentioned in the NRCoC. I would have advised such a split.

 

[Greenback]

There is a big difference between such things as routeing guide oddities and this rather straightforward split at a station where the train stops anyway.

I have suggested such splits many times, and none of the people who have travelled on such tickets as Swansea-Swindon & Swindon-Heathrow have encountered any conflict or 'discussions'.

 

[island]

Are you sure it was for the same train? The only reason I could see a guard telling her to get off and catch the train behind is if that is the one the ticket is valid on.

Yes, this. I rather doubt a guard would tell someone to use a train on which their ticket isn't valid.