Hi Folks,

Well, only a partial victory so far.

[To recap, I took the 16.45 Euston to Lockerbie train with a ticket to
Lockerbie, got off at Lockerbie, where the ticket office was closed,
reboarded and travelled to Edinburgh. The Train Manager refused to sell
me anything other than an Open Single and threatened me with arrest on
five occasions, several times for simply asking if he would sell a
discounted ticket to someone who boarded at Lockerbie]

Dear Mr Johnston

[Deleted]

I am very sorry to hear that you were charged for the full single fare
when purchasinga ticket on board our service.

[Policy explanation deleted]

Where the ticket office at the station of departure is closed,
customers will still be able to buy the full range of walk-on fares
valid for that service on board. [Victory: the TM claimed that was
utterly impossible -IJ]

I note from your comment that the booking office at Lockerbie is closed
at the time you were due to pass through the station and as such you
would have been unable to purchase a new ticket if you had alighted
there as your final destination.

I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.

[Deleted]

So, folks, what do you think? I think it is ridiculous that of all the
passengers who boarded that service at Lockerbie, I alone was not to be
allowed to buy a Saver because I had taken a train there. As far as I
am concerned I made two journeys.

I found the "later train" comment amusing. There isn't one, but
presumably if I had taken an earlier train to Lockerbie, then caught
the one I was on I would have been OK - although the ticket office
would have been open when I arrived.

Anyway, where do I go from here:

1) Concede graceful defeat?
2) Argue?
3) Another body? RUCC? OPRAF? SRA?
4) Small claims court? (yes, I know the sum is tiny but the TM spent an
hour telling other passengers that I was a fare evader as well as
threatening me, so I'm not terribly well disposed to Virgin Trains on
this one...)
5) Another option?

At the very least I intend to travel with that train, starting in
Lockerbie, a couple of times in the next few weeks...

Ian

Their reply is their standard first response. Stand your ground and go
back at them.

> I found the "later train" comment amusing. There isn't one, but
> presumably if I had taken an earlier train to Lockerbie, then caught
> the one I was on I would have been OK - although the ticket office
> would have been open when I arrived.

> 1) Concede graceful defeat?
> 2) Argue?


Say to them that if you don't recieve a refund then you will take the
matter further because you were perfectly within reason to buy a ticket
on the train.

Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:

>[To recap, I took the 16.45 Euston to Lockerbie train with a ticket to
>Lockerbie, got off at Lockerbie, where the ticket office was closed,
>reboarded and travelled to Edinburgh. The Train Manager refused to sell
>me anything other than an Open Single and threatened me with arrest on
>five occasions, several times for simply asking if he would sell a
>discounted ticket to someone who boarded at Lockerbie]


The TOC wrote:>

>I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
>yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
>on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
>Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
>would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.

>Anyway, where do I go from here:


I'd suggest to reply to the person who wrote to you, and remind them
that you did not 'remain on the original train', but alighted at
Lockerbie, repeating your request for a refund.

If that doesn't work, then write to the RPC:
<http://www.railpassengers.org.uk/Council/Complaints/AppealComplaints>


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Belle and Sebastian - Me And The Major (from the album 'If You're Feeling Sinister')

Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:


> I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
> yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
> on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
> Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
> would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.
>
>



Although you got off the train, you still boarded the same service and
therefore it was seen as an extension of your original journey. I still
see this as a little unfair as you didn't 'board the train' without a
valid ticket, however i am unsure on Virgin's official policy on
extension tickets. I've travelled many times on First Great Western
with tickets covering part of my journey and have been able to purchase
a saver return/cheap day return ticket on board without any problem,
however i did ask the conductor for an extension ticket BEFORE the
station where my ticket expired.

I definitely agree that you were mis-treated by the virgin staff that
day, but can understand being charged a full standard open single after
departing Lockerbie. Had you asked for it before your ticket expired i
would assume they would've charged you the cheaper saver/day single
price, however because you went past lockerbie before asking for the
ticket they see it as a new journey.

Don't give up tho, you still have the fact that the ticket office at
Lockerbie was closed to back you up, as you did attempt to buy a new
ticket. Good luck to you!

Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:

>[To recap, I took the 16.45 Euston to Lockerbie train with a ticket to
>Lockerbie, got off at Lockerbie, where the ticket office was closed,
>reboarded and travelled to Edinburgh. The Train Manager refused to sell
>me anything other than an Open Single and threatened me with arrest on
>five occasions, several times for simply asking if he would sell a
>discounted ticket to someone who boarded at Lockerbie]


Virgin wrote:

>I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
>yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
>on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
>Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
>would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.
>
>Anyway, where do I go from here:


I've just re-read your original post, and I'll change my advice
slightly:

Write back to the person who replied to you, and ask them whether, if
you had got off at Lockerbie, bought a new ticket, and managed to
reboard the same train (yes, I know you wouldn't have had time, but
it's the principle...) whether that would have been acceptable.

*Then* write to the RPC.


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: David Bowie - Suffragette City (from the album 'The Singles Collection')

GreatWesternSean wrote:

> Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
>>yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
>>on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
>>Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
>>would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Although you got off the train, you still boarded the same service and
> therefore it was seen as an extension of your original journey. I still
> see this as a little unfair as you didn't 'board the train' without a
> valid ticket, however i am unsure on Virgin's official policy on
> extension tickets. I've travelled many times on First Great Western
> with tickets covering part of my journey and have been able to purchase
> a saver return/cheap day return ticket on board without any problem,
> however i did ask the conductor for an extension ticket BEFORE the
> station where my ticket expired.
> 
> I definitely agree that you were mis-treated by the virgin staff that
> day, but can understand being charged a full standard open single after
> departing Lockerbie. Had you asked for it before your ticket expired i
> would assume they would've charged you the cheaper saver/day single
> price, however because you went past lockerbie before asking for the
> ticket they see it as a new journey.


If you go back and look up the other thread, with the original 
description, this is what Ian did, and was told that full price was the 
only option.

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:



> If you go back and look up the other thread, with the original
> description, this is what Ian did, and was told that full price was the
> only option.
>
> Robin



I never saw the original thread, thanks for the info.

The full price is definitely not the only option, the conductor
would've been shown the passengers valid London - Lockerbie ticket and
should have (by most other TOC's policies at least) issued him a saver
or cheap day ticket. If Virgin think charging fare paying passengers
wishing to extend their journey full price tickets is fair, then they
are kidding themselves. The passenger was not making a new journey as
he did not 'break' his journey nor pass the expiry point before
attempting to purchase. Give virgin hell!

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:42:44 UTC, "GreatWesternSean" 
 wrote:

: I definitely agree that you were mis-treated by the virgin staff that
: day, but can understand being charged a full standard open single after
: departing Lockerbie. Had you asked for it before your ticket expired i
: would assume they would've charged you the cheaper saver/day single
: price, however because you went past lockerbie before asking for the
: ticket they see it as a new journey.
:
I did ask before we arrived ... partly because I'm honest, partly 
because I thought it would save hassle, and partly because I thought 
the TM could sell a ticket for future travel, as many other Virgin TMs
will happily do. That brought three separate threats of arrest ...

Ian


--

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:00:52 UTC, Neil Sunderland 
 wrote:

: I've just re-read your original post, and I'll change my advice
: slightly:
:  
: Write back to the person who replied to you, and ask them whether, if
: you had got off at Lockerbie, bought a new ticket, and managed to
: reboard the same train (yes, I know you wouldn't have had time, but
: it's the principle...) whether that would have been acceptable.

Thanks. I couldn't have done that, as theticket office was closed: had
it been open I would not have expect to do what I asked to. If the 
ticket office had been open, of course, I could have got a friend in 
Lockerbie to buy me the ticket and hand it to me when the train came 
through...

Many thanks, all, for the advice. I shall keep at 'em. At the very 
least, I must be costing them tons more than the extra fiver they 
skinned off me!

Ian

--

Ian Johnston wrote:

>I shall keep at 'em. At the very 
>least, I must be costing them tons more than the extra fiver they 
>skinned off me!


That's the spirit :)


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Steely Dan - Brain Tap Shuffle (from the album 'Brooklyn')

In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-BpohPjjcWh59@localhost>
          "Ian Johnston"  wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:42:44 UTC, "GreatWesternSean" 
>  wrote:
> 
> : I definitely agree that you were mis-treated by the virgin staff that
> : day, but can understand being charged a full standard open single after
> : departing Lockerbie. Had you asked for it before your ticket expired i
> : would assume they would've charged you the cheaper saver/day single
> : price, however because you went past lockerbie before asking for the
> : ticket they see it as a new journey.
> :
> I did ask before we arrived ... partly because I'm honest, partly 
> because I thought it would save hassle, and partly because I thought 
> the TM could sell a ticket for future travel, as many other Virgin TMs
> will happily do. That brought three separate threats of arrest ...
> 


Tell them you are going to discuss with your lawyer the unwarrented threats
of arrest in front of witnesses.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Neil Sunderland"  wrote in message 
news:mu6bh1ti8ce990uplgje7ahqnrlsqkjvku@4ax.com...

> Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:
>>[To recap, I took the 16.45 Euston to Lockerbie train with a ticket to
>>Lockerbie, got off at Lockerbie, where the ticket office was closed,
>>reboarded and travelled to Edinburgh. The Train Manager refused to sell
>>me anything other than an Open Single and threatened me with arrest on
>>five occasions, several times for simply asking if he would sell a
>>discounted ticket to someone who boarded at Lockerbie]
>
> Virgin wrote:
>>I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
>>yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
>>on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
>>Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
>>would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.
>>
>>Anyway, where do I go from here:
>
> I've just re-read your original post, and I'll change my advice
> slightly:
>
> Write back to the person who replied to you, and ask them whether, if
> you had got off at Lockerbie, bought a new ticket, and managed to
> reboard the same train (yes, I know you wouldn't have had time, but
> it's the principle...) whether that would have been acceptable.
>
> *Then* write to the RPC.


Also write to 'The Guardian Money' doesn't matter which way you lean 
politically, they love stories like this and always get results...

wrote in message 
news:1125486348.645670.157490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...


> I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
> yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
> on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
> Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
> would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.


The conductor declined your reasonable request for a saver return and also 
cleary declined to use his noddle and apply common sense.

Do they not realise how absurd that paragraph sounds.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:27:48 UTC, Graeme Wall 
 wrote:

: In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-BpohPjjcWh59@localhost>
:           "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
:
: > I did ask before we arrived ... partly because I'm honest, partly 
: > because I thought it would save hassle, and partly because I thought 
: > the TM could sell a ticket for future travel, as many other Virgin TMs
: > will happily do. That brought three separate threats of arrest ...
: > 
: 
: Tell them you are going to discuss with your lawyer the unwarrented threats
: of arrest in front of witnesses.

I'm saving that one up, but it had occurred to me. One wantsto avoid 
obsession, but one also wants to stick it up 'em a tad.

Ian

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:40:24 UTC, "Bob Harris" 
<nospam@ihatespam.invalid> wrote:

:  wrote in message 
: news:1125486348.645670.157490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
: 
: > I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
: > yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
: > on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
: > Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
: > would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.
: 
: The conductor declined your reasonable request for a saver return and also 
: cleary declined to use his noddle and apply common sense.
: 
: Do they not realise how absurd that paragraph sounds. 

The whole thing defies logic. If I had taken an earlier train and 
arrived in Lockerbie when the ticket office was open, they'd have sold
me a ticket on the train, but because the ticket office was closed 
when I arrived they insist I should have bought a ticket there. 

Yes, I think this is worth continuing.

Ian

PS I wonder if it could be useful to have the letter I now have which 
says your journey starts when you first use a train, not when you get 
on the one you need a ticket for. That has interesting implications 
for journeys when one starts at an unstaffed station and changes 
trains...

> The whole thing defies logic. If I had taken an earlier train and
> arrived in Lockerbie when the ticket office was open, they'd have sold
> me a ticket on the train, but because the ticket office was closed
> when I arrived they insist I should have bought a ticket there.
> Yes, I think this is worth continuing.


Another thing I've been wondering about is, many Virgin TMs only go to
someone if they show intention of paying or showing a ticket. If the OP
had gone to the TM when he came round saying "Tickets from Lockerbie,"
he would got away with a SVR, or, on the other hand, the TM might
remember his face and if the OP had ignored him he would've got away
without paying at all.

In message , at 
04:05:48 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian.usenet@talk21.com remarked:

>I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
>yopu remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
>on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station.
>Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
>would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket.


This "what is a journey" thing is beginning to irritate me. It has all 
sorts of implications when (eg) changing trains after not having been 
able to buy a ticket at the original station, and using savers on legs 
of trips where savers on the same train would be banned nearer London.

You alighted at Lockerbie, then got on again. That's good enough for me 
(and more than you need to do if holding two tickets X-Lockerbie and 
Lockerbie-Y).

Perhaps they are confusing what happened with you asking to excess the 
ticket to Edinburgh while on a train that didn't stop at Lockerbie?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
04:42:44 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, GreatWesternSean 
 remarked:

>Although you got off the train, you still boarded the same service and
>therefore it was seen as an extension of your original journey. I still
>see this as a little unfair as you didn't 'board the train' without a
>valid ticket, however i am unsure on Virgin's official policy on
>extension tickets. I've travelled many times on First Great Western
>with tickets covering part of my journey and have been able to purchase
>a saver return/cheap day return ticket on board without any problem,
>however i did ask the conductor for an extension ticket BEFORE the
>station where my ticket expired.


But surely he wasn't looking for an *extension* ticket, but a *new* one 
from Lockerbie to Edinburgh.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-9vsdRzi5d62i@localhost>, at 16:20:19 on 
Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian Johnston  remarked:

>PS I wonder if it could be useful to have the letter I now have which
>says your journey starts when you first use a train, not when you get
>on the one you need a ticket for. That has interesting implications
>for journeys when one starts at an unstaffed station and changes
>trains...


Exactly! See my earlier response. Do they *really* want to have the 
concept of "journey" defined that way? (ie it completely trashes the 
concept of buying a ticket "at the first opportunity" when changing 
trains en-route.)
-- 
Roland Perry

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:25:59 UTC, Roland Perry  
wrote:

: In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-9vsdRzi5d62i@localhost>, at 16:20:19 on 
: Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian Johnston  remarked:
: >PS I wonder if it could be useful to have the letter I now have which
: >says your journey starts when you first use a train, not when you get
: >on the one you need a ticket for. That has interesting implications
: >for journeys when one starts at an unstaffed station and changes
: >trains...
: 
: Exactly! See my earlier response. Do they *really* want to have the 
: concept of "journey" defined that way? (ie it completely trashes the 
: concept of buying a ticket "at the first opportunity" when changing 
: trains en-route.)

I think I might ask them to confirm that in my next letter. Could be 
amusing...

Ian
--

Ian Johnston wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:25:59 UTC, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
>
> : In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-9vsdRzi5d62i@localhost>, at 16:20:19 on
> : Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian Johnston  remarked:
> : >PS I wonder if it could be useful to have the letter I now have which
> : >says your journey starts when you first use a train, not when you get
> : >on the one you need a ticket for. That has interesting implications
> : >for journeys when one starts at an unstaffed station and changes
> : >trains...
> :
> : Exactly! See my earlier response. Do they *really* want to have the
> : concept of "journey" defined that way? (ie it completely trashes the
> : concept of buying a ticket "at the first opportunity" when changing
> : trains en-route.)
>
> I think I might ask them to confirm that in my next letter. Could be
> amusing...


This whole thing really comes dow to the question of whether or not
stepping off a train onto the platform, and immediately realighting
affects your status in some way.

So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,
should the ticket that you hold not permit break of journey, you would
be in breach of the regulations?

:

>>I shall keep at 'em. At the very
>>least, I must be costing them tons more than the extra fiver they
>>skinned off me!
>
> That's the spirit :)


That is indeed the spirit- make it cost them so much for all the replies, 
that they think twice in future before saying no each time. I had a similar 
but different saga with West Midlands (bus) travel..a few days ago that is 
going to make their life hell and cost them... I tried to board a bus at my 
local stop, deemed to have a departure time of 09.30am, and I have a travel 
pass which is valid from 09.30 for free travel. Showing my pass I boarded-' 
That's not Valid yet came the stern reply, as I was first to board, at guess 
what , 09.28am . Off course it is, followed it isn't, and my explanation 
that the booked departure is 09.30 was frowned on. So I paid my 1.10 and 
got a ticket timed at 09.29am-- 11 more people boarded, by which time it was 
09.30am, and the driver accepted the same pass from the last two OAPs 
boarding for FREE.   Fortunately I had my camera and mobile with me- The 
driver got Fotted- to which she vigorously objected, and in the meantime I 
had called West Midlands Travel to confirm my ticket was valid, at the time 
I boarded.. Their feet will not touch the floor, PMT or not!!!!!!!!!!!... It 
will cost them a fortune if only in letters.

turbo wrote:


> will cost them a fortune if only in letters.


Not if they send one letter saying "You're right - here's your £1.10"
it won't.

In message , at 
11:15:59 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
>a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
>train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,
>should the ticket that you hold not permit break of journey, you would
>be in breach of the regulations?


No, because a "break" in the regulations involves leaving railway 
*property*, not just leaving the train.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:uuvAFeflceFDFAIi@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk...


> You alighted at Lockerbie, then got on again. That's good enough for me
> (and more than you need to do if holding two tickets X-Lockerbie and
> Lockerbie-Y).
>
> Perhaps they are confusing what happened with you asking to excess the
> ticket to Edinburgh while on a train that didn't stop at Lockerbie?


That was my thought also, especially the reference to a train "passing
through" at one point in the narrative.

The whole of VT's reaction to Ian's story is full of so much nonsense that
it's worth quoting parts of his OP in full:

"[To recap, I took the 16.45 Euston to Lockerbie train with a ticket to
Lockerbie, got off at Lockerbie, where the ticket office was closed,
reboarded and travelled to Edinburgh. The Train Manager refused to sell
me anything other than an Open Single and threatened me with arrest on
five occasions, several times for simply asking if he would sell a
discounted ticket to someone who boarded at Lockerbie]

Dear Mr Johnston

<snip>

Where the ticket office at the station of departure is closed,
customers will still be able to buy the full range of walk-on fares
valid for that service on board. [Victory: the TM claimed that was
utterly impossible -IJ]"

Exactly. That is correct, and it's worth quoting their words back to them,
because this is exactly what you were trying to do.

"I note from your comment that the booking office at Lockerbie is closed
at the time you were due to pass through...

Eh? Clear evidence that they think you were trying a "combination of tickets
on a non-stopping train"

"... the station and as such you would have been unable to purchase a new
ticket if you had alighted
there as your final destination."

Irrelevant. The relevant point is that you *were* (the expression "would
have been" is inappropriate, since it suggests a hypothetical situation)
unable to purchase a ticket *there* for a journey *starting there* for *that
particular train* - which is what you wanted to do. It is also irrelevant
that you did not go to the booking office, because if it was closed it was
closed (that's a question of fact), and the rules can't apply differently
depending on the passenger's state of knowledge or intent. Yes, if the
booking office had been open, you would have been stuffed. But it wasn't,
and they've admitted it wasn't. That point is the key to the matter.

"I am, (sic) unable to accede to your request for a refund of this as
you remained on the original train you travelled started your journey
on (sic) and as such your starting station was London Euston station."

Rubbish. The starting point for the journey in question was Lockerbie. The
fact that you started your journey from Lockerbie on the same train on which
you finished your earlier journey to Lockerbie is totally irrelevant. There
could be any number of reasons why a stay at a given destination is
necessary only for the time at which a train stops there. Two that
immediately spring to mind are (a) to collect something from someone you
have arranged to meet on the platform and (b) to take a photograph.

"Had you alighted at Lockerbie and caught the next service then you
would have been able to purchase a Saver Return ticket."

You did catch the next service. You arrived at Lockerbie station and decided
to catch a northbound train. You were delighted to find that there was a
train in the platform going exactly where you wanted to go. You realised the
booking office was closed, so got on and tried to buy a discounted ticket,
which the rules entitle you to do. You are 100% in the right.

Regards

Jonathan

"Chippy"  wrote in message 
news:1125514169.868319.293360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
turbo wrote:


> will cost them a fortune if only in letters.


Not if they send one letter saying "You're right - here's your 1.10"
it won't.
It will , I want my mobile costs and something for the embarrassment of 
being stopped at the front of a queue of passengers.. Could make that run 
for a long time- and a written apology and ...... and ....

turbo wrote:


> "Chippy"  wrote in message
> news:1125514169.868319.293360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> turbo wrote:
>
> > will cost them a fortune if only in letters.
>
> Not if they send one letter saying "You're right - here's your £1.10"
> it won't.
> It will , I want my mobile costs and something for the embarrassment of
> being stopped at the front of a queue of passengers.. Could make that run
> for a long time- and a written apology and ...... and ....


....get your £1.10 and get laughed at in the office for being yet
another grasping twat who thinks he can work the system.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:15:59 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
: a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
: train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,
: should the ticket that you hold not permit break of journey, you would
: be in breach of the regulations?

No. You are allowed to change trains without it counting as break of 
journey.

Ian

--

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:54:09 UTC, "Jonathan Morton" 
 wrote:

: You did catch the next service. You arrived at Lockerbie station and decided
: to catch a northbound train. You were delighted to find that there was a
: train in the platform going exactly where you wanted to go. You realised the
: booking office was closed, so got on and tried to buy a discounted ticket,
: which the rules entitle you to do. You are 100% in the right.

Thanks for the comments and support. The atrocious writing in the 
letter from VT suggests to me that it was not written by the brightest
torch in the glove compartment ... with luck my next one will get 
someone a bit more intelligent!

Ian

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at
> 11:15:59 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chippy  remarked:
> >So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
> >a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
> >train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,
> >should the ticket that you hold not permit break of journey, you would
> >be in breach of the regulations?
>
> No, because a "break" in the regulations involves leaving railway
> *property*, not just leaving the train.


Fair point, I suppose.

Just to save searching for the origianl thread, was there some
compelling reason or taking this particular course of action, rather
than just buying the ticket earlier?

Ian Johnston wrote:


> Thanks for the comments and support. The atrocious writing in the
> letter from VT suggests to me that it was not written by the brightest
> torch in the glove compartment ... with luck my next one will get
> someone a bit more intelligent!


I started with an open mind on this, but I'm now beginning to wonder
about your motives, particularly as you have adopted the "I'm
intellectually superior to the railway staff" approach.

Chippy wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments and support. The atrocious writing in the
> > letter from VT suggests to me that it was not written by the brightest
> > torch in the glove compartment ... with luck my next one will get
> > someone a bit more intelligent!
>
> I started with an open mind on this, but I'm now beginning to wonder
> about your motives, particularly as you have adopted the "I'm
> intellectually superior to the railway staff" approach.


Aren't his motives clear? Virgin falsely threatened him with arrest and
defrauded him out of money - something which they now admit given that
they disagree with the statements made on train by their guard.

He is looking for redress and is upset with the cretin at their head
office who wrote an illogical and illiterate letter explaining that
whilst their guard is indeed a liar he cannot have a refund.

Stating that the guard was lying and that the author of the letter is
an illiterate moron is not besmirching all Virrgin staff or rail staff
in general is it? What are your motives for implying so?

Ian - don't take no for an answer. If they keep sending you gibberish
letters that contradict themselves, go to the press. Worst case
scenario Virgin keep your money but are made out to be complete idiots.

Ian

Chippy wrote:

> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>>In message , at
>>11:15:59 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chippy  remarked:
>>
>>>So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
>>>a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
>>>train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,
>>>should the ticket that you hold not permit break of journey, you would
>>>be in breach of the regulations?
>>
>>No, because a "break" in the regulations involves leaving railway
>>*property*, not just leaving the train.
> 
> Fair point, I suppose.
> 
> Just to save searching for the origianl thread, was there some
> compelling reason or taking this particular course of action, rather
> than just buying the ticket earlier?


If it helps, the original message is at 
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/msg/4ed56cff8e07a142

Ian went from Lockerbie-London and on his return journey discovered he 
needed to continue to Edinburgh.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:44:39 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: 
: > Thanks for the comments and support. The atrocious writing in the
: > letter from VT suggests to me that it was not written by the brightest
: > torch in the glove compartment ... with luck my next one will get
: > someone a bit more intelligent!
: 
: I started with an open mind on this, but I'm now beginning to wonder
: about your motives, particularly as you have adopted the "I'm
: intellectually superior to the railway staff" approach.

Not at all.

Ian "Cackling Diabolically" J

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:39:38 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: Just to save searching for the origianl thread, was there some
: compelling reason or taking this particular course of action, rather
: than just buying the ticket earlier?

After we had left Euston I found out that I had an appointment in 
Edinburgh early the following morning. Since I was already on an 
Edinburgh train, it seemed to make sense to take it all the way and 
stay there, rather than going to Lockerbie, driving an hour to home, 
getting up at 6am, driving an hour back to Lockerbie and catching the 
07.34 to Edinburgh.

Ian
--

Ian Johnston wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:39:38 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:
>
> : Just to save searching for the origianl thread, was there some
> : compelling reason or taking this particular course of action, rather
> : than just buying the ticket earlier?
>
> After we had left Euston I found out that I had an appointment in
> Edinburgh early the following morning. Since I was already on an
> Edinburgh train, it seemed to make sense to take it all the way and
> stay there, rather than going to Lockerbie, driving an hour to home,
> getting up at 6am, driving an hour back to Lockerbie and catching the
> 07.34 to Edinburgh.



I've read the original now, thanks.  It looks like a classic example of
people getting off on the wrong foot.  The guard was obviously wrong to
state that he couldn't sell a reduced fare ticket under any
circumstance, but the getting off and back on thing does take a bit of
'getting your head around' (hence this thread), and, at first glance,
might appear as some sort of attempt at fare evasion.  And, of course,
it doesn't help that you are the sort of person who judges the
intelligence of railway staff.

So - a combination of a guard who could have been better trained, and
you fancying yourself as a clever bugger.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:01:17 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: And, of course,
: it doesn't help that you are the sort of person who judges the
: intelligence of railway staff.

I judge the intelligence of anyone who writes be an ungrammatical, 
illiterate letter to be pretty low. Doesn't matter whether they are 
railway staff or not.

Ian
--

On 31 Aug 2005 22:27:01 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>I judge the intelligence of anyone who writes be an ungrammatical, 

                                               ^^

Sodde's Law of Pedantry strikes again... :)

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:01:17 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:
>
>: And, of course,
>: it doesn't help that you are the sort of person who judges the
>: intelligence of railway staff.
>
>I judge the intelligence of anyone who writes be an ungrammatical, 
>illiterate letter to be pretty low. Doesn't matter whether they are 
>railway staff or not.



Welcome to the wndrfl wrld of txts (and call centres).  No-one knows
how to write letters any more.

The art of writing business letters is dying fast.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:36:32 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: On 31 Aug 2005 22:27:01 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
:  wrote:
: 
: >I judge the intelligence of anyone who writes be an ungrammatical, 
:                                                ^^
: Sodde's Law of Pedantry strikes again... :)

Indeed. You can't fight it!

Ian

In message , at 
15:01:17 on Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>
>So - a combination of a guard who could have been better trained, and
>you fancying yourself as a clever bugger.


On the other hand, when the railway system invents bizarre and complex 
rules which a passenger infringes unintentionally it's the *railways* 
who start playing "clever buggers" and take the passenger to the 
cleaners. What goes around comes around.
-- 
Roland Perry

Chippy wrote:

> So - a combination of a guard who could have been better trained, and
> you fancying yourself as a clever bugger.


No, it's who who is the latter, and you're not.

How can you say it was an attempt at fare "evading", he OFFERED to pay
the fare BEFORE the train arrived at Lockerbie.

You are clearly a troll and I will not reply to you further.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> This whole thing really comes dow to the question of whether or not
> stepping off a train onto the platform, and immediately realighting
> affects your status in some way.
> So, for the sake of argument - would you accept that if you stepped off
> a train (perhaps to allow someone to alight from a full-and-standing
> train) you should be deemed to have broken your journey, and, that,

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> I've read the original now, thanks.  It looks like a classic example of
> people getting off on the wrong foot.  The guard was obviously wrong to
> state that he couldn't sell a reduced fare ticket under any
> circumstance, but the getting off and back on thing does take a bit of
> 'getting your head around' (hence this thread), and, at first glance,
> might appear as some sort of attempt at fare evasion.  And, of course,
> it doesn't help that you are the sort of person who judges the
> intelligence of railway staff.
> So - a combination of a guard who could have been better trained, and

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Not if they send one letter saying "You're right - here's your 1.10"
> it won't.

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Anonymous wrote:


> "Chippy"  wrote:
>
> > Not if they send one letter saying "You're right - here's your 1.10"
> > it won't.
>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Further posting of this or similarly offensive material may result in
severe disruption to the group.

Roland Perry wrote:


> On the other hand, when the railway system invents bizarre and complex
> rules which a passenger infringes unintentionally it's the *railways*
> who start playing "clever buggers" and take the passenger to the
> cleaners. What goes around comes around.


Yes, but this is neither bizarre nor complex.  Virgin will only sell
full-fare singles as excess fares (unless the passenger couldn't buty a
ticket at the station of origin)  It's a response to fare evasion.

The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.

In message , at 
06:10:31 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, when the railway system invents bizarre and complex
>> rules which a passenger infringes unintentionally it's the *railways*
>> who start playing "clever buggers" and take the passenger to the
>> cleaners. What goes around comes around.
>
>Yes, but this is neither bizarre nor complex.


The case in point is fairly bizarre, but as you say not very complex (a 
shame that Virgin has got it so wrong, though). But I had the wider 
issues of railway ticketing in mind.


>Virgin will only sell
>full-fare singles as excess fares (unless the passenger couldn't buty a
>ticket at the station of origin)


I'm glad you said "station of origin". One of the things this sad tale 
seems to be establishing is that if you can't buy a ticket at the 
station of origin, you can still change to another train without penalty 
(having failed to buy on at the station where you changed trains).


>It's a response to fare evasion.


That raises other issues to do with "presumption of innocence".


>The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
>allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
>shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.


Exactly - it is Virgin who is trying to be the "clever buggers", from a 
position where they are wrong.

-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> >Virgin will only sell
> >full-fare singles as excess fares (unless the passenger couldn't buty a
> >ticket at the station of origin)
>
> I'm glad you said "station of origin". One of the things this sad tale
> seems to be establishing is that if you can't buy a ticket at the
> station of origin, you can still change to another train without penalty
> (having failed to buy on at the station where you changed trains).


You seem determined to harp on about that point (I don't know why).
I'm dealing solely with the case in hand.


>
> >It's a response to fare evasion.
>
> That raises other issues to do with "presumption of innocence".


No - it raises the issue that if you ride beyond the point that your
ticket is valid to, you don't get a discounted fare. People who ride
beyond their ticketed destination are often trying to avoid the fare.


>
> >The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
> >allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
> >shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.
>
> Exactly - it is Virgin who is trying to be the "clever buggers", from a
> position where they are wrong.


It seems likely that the OP took an arrogant and high-handed approach.
Put it this way - 99 out of 100 people would have handled the situation
better, and would have got the ticket.

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>Further posting of this or similarly offensive material may result in
>severe disruption to the group.
>


Would you care to elaborate on that?
Will the Usenet Gestapo rise from their slumbers and come after us all?
-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

James Christie wrote:


> In message ,
> Chippy  writes
> >Further posting of this or similarly offensive material may result in
> >severe disruption to the group.
> >
>
> Would you care to elaborate on that?
> Will the Usenet Gestapo rise from their slumbers and come after us all?


No, but a number of usernames will flood the group with large messages.

In message , at 
06:41:14 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> >Virgin will only sell
>> >full-fare singles as excess fares (unless the passenger couldn't buty a
>> >ticket at the station of origin)
>>
>> I'm glad you said "station of origin". One of the things this sad tale
>> seems to be establishing is that if you can't buy a ticket at the
>> station of origin, you can still change to another train without penalty
>> (having failed to buy on at the station where you changed trains).
>
>You seem determined to harp on about that point (I don't know why).


Because the railway industry has rules about "journeys" and its 
unacceptable for them to have different definitions of a "journey" for 
different rules, depending on what suits them at the time.


>I'm dealing solely with the case in hand.


Which, in fact, involves the definition of a "journey". Virgin are 
alleging that the OP was on *one* journey from London to Edinburgh, 
despite alighting at Lockerbie. That's very significant.


>> >It's a response to fare evasion.
>>
>> That raises other issues to do with "presumption of innocence".
>
>No - it raises the issue that if you ride beyond the point that your
>ticket is valid to, you don't get a discounted fare.


In this case (as you want to discuss this case) the OP didn't ride 
beyond his ticket. It was to Lockerbie, and he got off there. He then 
started a second "ride" to Edinburgh.


> People who ride
>beyond their ticketed destination are often trying to avoid the fare.


Maybe, but that's not the kind of situation I have most in mind. The 
traveller can be off-route, for example. As discussed in the GNER thread 
a couple of months ago (where the chap wasn't off-route, but GNER 
changed the rules afterwards so that any future travellers are).

I have my own query about getting a Thameslink to Bedford, and then MML 
to Nottingham, on a saver in the evening peak. I can't make any progress 
on finding out if this is valid, as the railway industry is being far 
too  evasive in the way their rules are expressed.


>> >The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
>> >allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
>> >shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.
>>
>> Exactly - it is Virgin who is trying to be the "clever buggers", from a
>> position where they are wrong.
>
>It seems likely that the OP took an arrogant and high-handed approach.
>Put it this way - 99 out of 100 people would have handled the situation
>better, and would have got the ticket.


Oh dear.
-- 
Roland Perry

Chippy wrote:


> It seems likely that the OP took an arrogant and high-handed approach.
> Put it this way - 99 out of 100 people would have handled the situation
> better, and would have got the ticket.


From the original post:

--> I explain this to the train manager who said there would be
--> no problem, he could sell me a ticket, and he came along to
--> do this after Carlisle.

How could the OP have handled it better?  He explained his problem in
advance to the conductor and was obviously not trying to dodge the fare.

Roland Perry wrote:


> Because the railway industry has rules about "journeys" and its
> unacceptable for them to have different definitions of a "journey" for
> different rules, depending on what suits them at the time.
>
> >I'm dealing solely with the case in hand.
>
> Which, in fact, involves the definition of a "journey". Virgin are
> alleging that the OP was on *one* journey from London to Edinburgh,
> despite alighting at Lockerbie. That's very significant.


Which brings us back to my earlier point about whether or not something
'magic' occurs if the passenger steps off onto the platform, then
immediately jumps back on the train.  Would you advance the same
argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the platform?


>
> >> >It's a response to fare evasion.
> >>
> >> That raises other issues to do with "presumption of innocence".
> >
> >No - it raises the issue that if you ride beyond the point that your
> >ticket is valid to, you don't get a discounted fare.
>
> In this case (as you want to discuss this case) the OP didn't ride
> beyond his ticket. It was to Lockerbie, and he got off there. He then
> started a second "ride" to Edinburgh.


See above.


>
> > People who ride
> >beyond their ticketed destination are often trying to avoid the fare.
>
> Maybe, but that's not the kind of situation I have most in mind. The
> traveller can be off-route, for example. As discussed in the GNER thread
> a couple of months ago (where the chap wasn't off-route, but GNER
> changed the rules afterwards so that any future travellers are).
>
> I have my own query about getting a Thameslink to Bedford, and then MML
> to Nottingham, on a saver in the evening peak. I can't make any progress
> on finding out if this is valid, as the railway industry is being far
> too  evasive in the way their rules are expressed.


Are you  talking about a Nottingham - Bedford Saver, or about trying to
work around the afternoon/evening peak restrictions on a Nottingham -
London?


>
> >> >The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
> >> >allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
> >> >shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.
> >>
> >> Exactly - it is Virgin who is trying to be the "clever buggers", from a
> >> position where they are wrong.
> >
> >It seems likely that the OP took an arrogant and high-handed approach.
> >Put it this way - 99 out of 100 people would have handled the situation
> >better, and would have got the ticket.
> 
> Oh dear.


Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.

"Chippy"  wrote:


> James Christie wrote:
> 
> > In message ,
> > Chippy  writes
> > >Further posting of this or similarly offensive material may result in
> > >severe disruption to the group.
> > >
> >
> > Would you care to elaborate on that?
> > Will the Usenet Gestapo rise from their slumbers and come after us all?
> 
> No, but a number of usernames will flood the group with large messages.


Is that a threat?

In message , at 
07:49:01 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Because the railway industry has rules about "journeys" and its
>> unacceptable for them to have different definitions of a "journey" for
>> different rules, depending on what suits them at the time.
>>
>> >I'm dealing solely with the case in hand.
>>
>> Which, in fact, involves the definition of a "journey". Virgin are
>> alleging that the OP was on *one* journey from London to Edinburgh,
>> despite alighting at Lockerbie. That's very significant.
>
>Which brings us back to my earlier point about whether or not something
>'magic' occurs if the passenger steps off onto the platform, then
>immediately jumps back on the train.  Would you advance the same
>argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the platform?


The ticket he wanted to buy relied upon the Lockerbie ticket office 
being closed. Getting off the train was a way of demonstrating that he'd 
checked this (although arguably it was inevitable that it would have 
been closed).


>> I have my own query about getting a Thameslink to Bedford, and then MML
>> to Nottingham, on a saver in the evening peak. I can't make any progress
>> on finding out if this is valid, as the railway industry is being far
>> too  evasive in the way their rules are expressed.
>
>Are you  talking about a Nottingham - Bedford Saver, or about trying to
>work around the afternoon/evening peak restrictions on a Nottingham -
>London?


The latter. The MML trains peak are half empty north of Bedford, so it's 
no bother to them if I join. Indeed, it would be unilaterally OK if I 
bought Nottingham/Bedford and Bedford/London tickets. And there's a 
chance that I might be delayed, and be able to get a legal saver train 
all the way. What concerns me is the uncertainty in the rules.


>> >> >The guard on the OP's train made a mistake.  But the approach taken,
>> >> >allied to the evidence of a supercillious attitude to railway staff,
>> >> >shows that the situation could have been hamdled better.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly - it is Virgin who is trying to be the "clever buggers", from a
>> >> position where they are wrong.
>> >
>> >It seems likely that the OP took an arrogant and high-handed approach.
>> >Put it this way - 99 out of 100 people would have handled the situation
>> >better, and would have got the ticket.
>>
>> Oh dear.
>
>Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.


No, you should refrain from such ad-hominem assumptions.
-- 
Roland Perry

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

> "Chippy"  wrote:
>>James Christie wrote:
>>>In message ,
>>>Chippy  writes
>>>
>>>>Further posting of this or similarly offensive material may result in
>>>>severe disruption to the group.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Would you care to elaborate on that?
>>>Will the Usenet Gestapo rise from their slumbers and come after us all?
>>
>>No, but a number of usernames will flood the group with large messages.
> 
> 
> Is that a threat?
> 
> 


Yes, a bizarre one at that.

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:


> "Chippy"  wrote:

> > No, but a number of usernames will flood the group with large messages.
> 
> Is that a threat?


Just a statement of fact.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at
> 07:49:01 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

> >Which brings us back to my earlier point about whether or not something
> >'magic' occurs if the passenger steps off onto the platform, then
> >immediately jumps back on the train.  Would you advance the same
> >argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the platform?
>
> The ticket he wanted to buy relied upon the Lockerbie ticket office
> being closed. Getting off the train was a way of demonstrating that he'd
> checked this (although arguably it was inevitable that it would have
> been closed).


I note that you didn't answer the question.



> >Are you  talking about a Nottingham - Bedford Saver, or about trying to
> >work around the afternoon/evening peak restrictions on a Nottingham -
> >London?
>
> The latter. The MML trains peak are half empty north of Bedford, so it's
> no bother to them if I join. Indeed, it would be unilaterally OK if I
> bought Nottingham/Bedford and Bedford/London tickets. And there's a
> chance that I might be delayed, and be able to get a legal saver train
> all the way. What concerns me is the uncertainty in the rules.


Let me get this right - you are bothered because they haven't drawn to
your attention a means of avoiding a restriction?


> >
> >Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.
>
> No, you should refrain from such ad-hominem assumptions.


It is a staement based upon the OP's expressed opinion of railway staff
intelligence.

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message , at
>> 07:49:01 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:
>
>> >Which brings us back to my earlier point about whether or not something
>> >'magic' occurs if the passenger steps off onto the platform, then
>> >immediately jumps back on the train.  Would you advance the same
>> >argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the platform?
>>
>> The ticket he wanted to buy relied upon the Lockerbie ticket office
>> being closed. Getting off the train was a way of demonstrating that he'd
>> checked this (although arguably it was inevitable that it would have
>> been closed).
>
>I note that you didn't answer the question.
>


I think he did. You're just being pedantic.


>> >
>> >Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.
>>
>> No, you should refrain from such ad-hominem assumptions.
>
>It is a staement based upon the OP's expressed opinion of railway staff
>intelligence.
>


You don't think that maybe, just maybe, the OP may be right about the 
intelligence of said individual (he implied it about a couple of 
individuals, you're making it into a condemnation of railway staff on 
the whole).
Obviously since you were at said event in some kind of God-like 
presence, you can enlighten us all as to said persons knowledge of the 
Fares manual and competence?
-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> No, but a number of usernames will flood the group with large messages.

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message , at 
10:15:07 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:


>> >Which brings us back to my earlier point about whether or not something
>> >'magic' occurs if the passenger steps off onto the platform, then
>> >immediately jumps back on the train.  Would you advance the same
>> >argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the platform?
>>
>> The ticket he wanted to buy relied upon the Lockerbie ticket office
>> being closed. Getting off the train was a way of demonstrating that he'd
>> checked this (although arguably it was inevitable that it would have
>> been closed).
>
>I note that you didn't answer the question.


It was a hypothetical question. I note that ATOC started refusing, years 
ago, to answer hypothetical questions about the validity of tickets.

As for whether getting on and off matters: it doesn't when joining two 
tickets together at a station where the train stops, so if the rules 
were supposed to make sense then it shouldn't matter in this case. 
Although if the ticket office been unexpectedly open, he could probably 
have deduced that from the boarding passengers, and asked for a 
different fare.


>> >Are you  talking about a Nottingham - Bedford Saver, or about trying to
>> >work around the afternoon/evening peak restrictions on a Nottingham -
>> >London?
>>
>> The latter. The MML trains peak are half empty north of Bedford, so it's
>> no bother to them if I join. Indeed, it would be unilaterally OK if I
>> bought Nottingham/Bedford and Bedford/London tickets. And there's a
>> chance that I might be delayed, and be able to get a legal saver train
>> all the way. What concerns me is the uncertainty in the rules.
>
>Let me get this right - you are bothered because they haven't drawn to
>your attention a means of avoiding a restriction?


No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much 
worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to 
understand the question (even denying what it said in their own 
timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who 
refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the 
system". The printed rules are so opaque that even after two attempts on 
this newsgroup to get nearer to what they might actually be saying, has 
brought no conclusion.


>> >Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.
>>
>> No, you should refrain from such ad-hominem assumptions.
>
>It is a staement based upon the OP's expressed opinion of railway staff
>intelligence.


He was referring to the staff who wrote the letter, not those on the 
train. The letter condemns its writer, I'm afraid. That's not the 
person's fault, they should have better training, or be told to escalate 
the more difficult letters to someone else.

[1] Because I understand their ethic of "screw the customer if you can". 
In former times I might have expected them to say something like "well, 
if you are that desperate to travel back in the evening peak on a saver, 
you could get a Thameslink to Bedford and change there". Such advice 
used to be given with regard to the similar restrictions on the 
Paddington-Reading route (ie cheap tickets valid on the commuter trains 
only).
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:49:01 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: Indeed. The OP should have handled things better.

How?

Ian

--

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:15:07 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:

: It is a staement based upon the OP's expressed opinion of railway staff
: intelligence.

If you had read my post as carefully as a personal attack in reply 
would require, you would have noticed that it's only the person who 
wrote me an illiterate letter whose abilitioes I doubt. I have said 
nothing about the generality of railway staff, for whom, including all
but one of Virgin's Train Managers, I have a very high regard.

Ian


--

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at
> 10:15:07 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

> >I note that you didn't answer the question.
>
> It was a hypothetical question.


No, it wasn't.


>  I note that ATOC started refusing, years
> ago, to answer hypothetical questions about the validity of tickets.


So, having made that observation, do you think that it is right not to
answer hypothetical questions?


>
> As for whether getting on and off matters: it doesn't when joining two
> tickets together at a station where the train stops, so if the rules
> were supposed to make sense then it shouldn't matter in this case.
> Although if the ticket office been unexpectedly open, he could probably
> have deduced that from the boarding passengers, and asked for a
> different fare.


The allowance for passengers joining trains at stations where the
ticket office is closed is designed for their convenience (and,
arguably, to allow the TOCs to close offices earlier).  It isn't
designed to be used as a ploy to 'work' or beat the system.  In
fairness, the OP clearly wasn't trying to beat the system (in the usual
sense) given the circumstances thatled to his decision to extend his
journey.  But he has falllen foul of the fact that the efforts of a
fairly small number of people to work the system has led to mistrust of
the motves and methods of people doing anything unusual.

>
> >> >Are you  talking about a Nottingham - Bedford Saver, or about trying to
> >> >work around the afternoon/evening peak restrictions on a Nottingham -
> >> >London?
> >>
> >> The latter. The MML trains peak are half empty north of Bedford, so it's
> >> no bother to them if I join. Indeed, it would be unilaterally OK if I
> >> bought Nottingham/Bedford and Bedford/London tickets. And there's a
> >> chance that I might be delayed, and be able to get a legal saver train
> >> all the way. What concerns me is the uncertainty in the rules.
> >
> >Let me get this right - you are bothered because they haven't drawn to
> >your attention a means of avoiding a restriction?
>
> No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much
> worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to
> understand the question (even denying what it said in their own
> timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who
> refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the
> system".


Isn't that just what you were doing?  Once again, I wouldn't think that
there was anything wrong in doing what you suggest - after all, you
could have travelled on your return Saver as far as Bedford, then
doubled back on a Day Return Bedford - Luton, before resuming your
jouney northward.  But, equally, I wouldn't expect MML staff to
sanction or suggest the idea.

In message , at 
13:04:15 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message , at
>> 10:15:07 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:
>
>> >I note that you didn't answer the question.
>>
>> It was a hypothetical question.
>
>No, it wasn't.


<panto>

Oh yes it was

</panto>

In case you don't remember, you asked what I'd think about things if he 
hadn't got off the train. A hypothetical situation.


>>  I note that ATOC started refusing, years
>> ago, to answer hypothetical questions about the validity of tickets.
>
>So, having made that observation, do you think that it is right not to
>answer hypothetical questions?


As holders of the rulebook, I think AToC, or someone on their behalf, 
should be responsible for answering "what if" questions regarding the 
purchase of train tickets. Leaving it until the hapless punter has 
bought a ticket on insufficient information, then playing the "clever 
clogs" card isn't fair.


>> As for whether getting on and off matters: it doesn't when joining two
>> tickets together at a station where the train stops, so if the rules
>> were supposed to make sense then it shouldn't matter in this case.
>> Although if the ticket office been unexpectedly open, he could probably
>> have deduced that from the boarding passengers, and asked for a
>> different fare.
>
>The allowance for passengers joining trains at stations where the
>ticket office is closed is designed for their convenience (and,
>arguably, to allow the TOCs to close offices earlier).  It isn't
>designed to be used as a ploy to 'work' or beat the system.


Ah, you must be related to that chap I met at Nottingham, station. Maybe 
you *are* that chap!!


>> No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much
>> worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to
>> understand the question (even denying what it said in their own
>> timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who
>> refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the
>> system".
>
>Isn't that just what you were doing?


I'm not trying to "beat" the system. Just trying to get the best deal 
*within* the system. I didn't invent the system - the railways did. They 
will come down on me like a ton of bricks if I'm just *outside* the 
system, so it's a bit rich when they get sour grapes because I'm just 
*inside* the system. Tickets are either valid or not (assuming you can 
find out). On my last trip I got a very cheap AP ticket on a peak 
evening service. I don't particularly question the sense behind that, 
but am I "trying to beat the system" by paying less than an open ticket? 
I don't think so.

Am I "trying to beat the system" if I buy a ticket via Grantham, which 
is cheaper than going direct? I don't think so (even though I suspect 
few people are offered this as an option by the ticket office).


>Once again, I wouldn't think that
>there was anything wrong in doing what you suggest - after all, you
>could have travelled on your return Saver as far as Bedford, then
>doubled back on a Day Return Bedford - Luton, before resuming your
>jouney northward.  But, equally, I wouldn't expect MML staff to
>sanction or suggest the idea.


I don't understand why that strategy helps at all.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:


> <panto>
> 
> Oh yes it was
> 
> </panto>


Please do not feed the troll...
 

> I'm not trying to "beat" the system. 


As we see from the reported replies from the TOCs, some at least of 
those *are* trying to beat the system, with their customers as the 
victim, and with threats of criminal prosecution as their weapon.

In a retail situation, when there is any doubt about the meaning of 
the terms and conditions set by the company, the courts usually give 
the benefit of the doubt to the retail customer. I'm puzzled why the 
railways seem to be allowed to turn this principle on its head, when 
it suits them.

Worse still: we've seen here reports of at least one TOC re-defining 
the rules retrospectively, and giving the impression of applying those 
later rules to a contract that was entered into earlier, for heaven's 
sake.  

What defence is left to protect the honest customer?

As usual, the trolls will doubtless tell us that the honest customers 
have to be punished to protect the railways from fraud.  Sigh.

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message , at
> 13:04:15 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

> >No, it wasn't.
>
> <panto>
>
> Oh yes it was
>
> </panto>
>
> In case you don't remember, you asked what I'd think about things if he
> hadn't got off the train. A hypothetical situation.


Well, with a smartarse attitude like that it is easy to see why you
don't get much help from people.  And I didn't ask what you would think
- I asked if you would use the same argument:  "Would you advance the
same argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the
platform?".


>
> >>  I note that ATOC started refusing, years
> >> ago, to answer hypothetical questions about the validity of tickets.
> >
> >So, having made that observation, do you think that it is right not to
> >answer hypothetical questions?
>
> As holders of the rulebook, I think AToC, or someone on their behalf,
> should be responsible for answering "what if" questions regarding the
> purchase of train tickets. Leaving it until the hapless punter has
> bought a ticket on insufficient information, then playing the "clever
> clogs" card isn't fair.


It isn't ATOC who play that particular card...


>
> >> As for whether getting on and off matters: it doesn't when joining two
> >> tickets together at a station where the train stops, so if the rules
> >> were supposed to make sense then it shouldn't matter in this case.
> >> Although if the ticket office been unexpectedly open, he could probably
> >> have deduced that from the boarding passengers, and asked for a
> >> different fare.
> >
> >The allowance for passengers joining trains at stations where the
> >ticket office is closed is designed for their convenience (and,
> >arguably, to allow the TOCs to close offices earlier).  It isn't
> >designed to be used as a ploy to 'work' or beat the system.
>
> Ah, you must be related to that chap I met at Nottingham, station. Maybe
> you *are* that chap!!


No, I'm neither.  The number of people who don't think that the ticket
system is there to be manipulated is obviously greater than you
thought.


>
> >> No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much
> >> worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to
> >> understand the question (even denying what it said in their own
> >> timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who
> >> refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the
> >> system".
> >
> >Isn't that just what you were doing?
>
> I'm not trying to "beat" the system. Just trying to get the best deal
> *within* the system. I didn't invent the system - the railways did. They
> will come down on me like a ton of bricks if I'm just *outside* the
> system, so it's a bit rich when they get sour grapes because I'm just
> *inside* the system. Tickets are either valid or not (assuming you can
> find out). On my last trip I got a very cheap AP ticket on a peak
> evening service. I don't particularly question the sense behind that,
> but am I "trying to beat the system" by paying less than an open ticket?
> I don't think so.


But no-one ehas said that your ticket would be invalid - I've said that
I think it would be valid.  But, by trying to overcome the restriction
(the opurpose of which is fairly clear) you are trying to 'work' or
beat the system.


>
> Am I "trying to beat the system" if I buy a ticket via Grantham, which
> is cheaper than going direct? I don't think so (even though I suspect
> few people are offered this as an option by the ticket office).


I don't think that anyone would suggest that that was the case.


>
> >Once again, I wouldn't think that
> >there was anything wrong in doing what you suggest - after all, you
> >could have travelled on your return Saver as far as Bedford, then
> >doubled back on a Day Return Bedford - Luton, before resuming your
> >jouney northward.  But, equally, I wouldn't expect MML staff to
> >sanction or suggest the idea.
> 
> I don't understand why that strategy helps at all.


Think about it.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:


> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > <panto>
> >
> > Oh yes it was
> >
> > </panto>
>
> Please do not feed the troll...


I am not a troll, arsehole.

You have brought disruption one step closer.

In message ,
Chippy  writes

>Well, with a smartarse attitude like that it is easy to see why you
>don't get much help from people.  And I didn't ask what you would think
>- I asked if you would use the same argument:  "Would you advance the
>same argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the
>platform?".
>


You're accusing him of being a smartarse?

Hahahaha.
A breathtaking example of pot and kettle here, methinks.
You really are looking like a troll.

                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE CHIPPY   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> > <panto>
>> >
>> > Oh yes it was
>> >
>> > </panto>
>>
>> Please do not feed the troll...
>
>I am not a troll, arsehole.
>
>You have brought disruption one step closer.
>


Are you one of those fellas who goes about shouting 'The End is Nigh, 
burn in hell all ye sinners'.

You're beginning to *really* sound like it.
-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

James Christie wrote:


>
> You're accusing him of being a smartarse?
>
> Hahahaha.
> A breathtaking example of pot and kettle here, methinks.
> You really are looking like a troll.


A weak-minded depressive like you is in no position to judge anything.


>
>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ |   FEED THE ARSEHOLE |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>


Fair enough - I'll adopt a policy of 'If you can't beat 'em join 'em'.
As people feel that it is OK to arbitrarily declare people trolls, I
shall folow suit.

In message , at 
14:38:30 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message , at
>> 13:04:15 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:
>
>> >No, it wasn't.
>>
>> <panto>
>>
>> Oh yes it was
>>
>> </panto>
>>
>> In case you don't remember, you asked what I'd think about things if he
>> hadn't got off the train. A hypothetical situation.
>
>Well, with a smartarse attitude like that it is easy to see why you
>don't get much help from people.  And I didn't ask what you would think
>- I asked if you would use the same argument:  "Would you advance the
>same argument that you are now if the OP hadn't stepped onto the
>platform?".


In other words "do I think the same argument would apply if the OP 
hadn't stepped onto the platform".


>> >>  I note that ATOC started refusing, years
>> >> ago, to answer hypothetical questions about the validity of tickets.
>> >
>> >So, having made that observation, do you think that it is right not to
>> >answer hypothetical questions?
>>
>> As holders of the rulebook, I think AToC, or someone on their behalf,
>> should be responsible for answering "what if" questions regarding the
>> purchase of train tickets. Leaving it until the hapless punter has
>> bought a ticket on insufficient information, then playing the "clever
>> clogs" card isn't fair.
>
>It isn't ATOC who play that particular card...


AToC set many of the rules (I had the routing guide particularly in 
mind).


>The number of people who don't think that the ticket system is there to 
>be manipulated is obviously greater than you thought.


The grippers seem to think that the rule should be applied right down to 
the wire. Why one rule for them and another for the passengers?


>> >> No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much
>> >> worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to
>> >> understand the question (even denying what it said in their own
>> >> timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who
>> >> refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the
>> >> system".

>But no-one ehas said that your ticket would be invalid - I've said that
>I think it would be valid.


Actually, lots of people have said it would be invalid, including the 
staff at Nottingham, and people posting here. The issue being, are 
"savers from London" banned completely on the trains in question, or 
only banned if used *south of Luton* on the trains in question? Simple 
enough, you'd have thought, but opinions differ.


> But, by trying to overcome the restriction (the opurpose of which is 
>fairly clear) you are trying to 'work' or beat the system.


No more than by, for example, buying a "via Grantham" ticket and 
travelling (instead on GNER) on WAGN to Peterborough, then completing 
the trip by Central, neither of which have saver restrictions. I can't 
understand why you think that using a ticket within its published 
validity is "beating" the system. The *whole point* of WAGN and Central 
not having the saver restriction is to allow people to use saver tickets 
on their trains. If they intended people not to use them, WAGN and 
Thameslink would have the same saver restrictions in the evening as they 
do in the morning, but they have *chosen* not to.


>> Am I "trying to beat the system" if I buy a ticket via Grantham, which
>> is cheaper than going direct? I don't think so (even though I suspect
>> few people are offered this as an option by the ticket office).
>
>I don't think that anyone would suggest that that was the case.


I can't see any difference. Both scenarios are proposing the use of a 
ticket within its validity (let's assume the MML scenario is legal for a 
moment). If the MML scenario isn't valid then I'd use a different 
combination of tickets for the same effect - probably a 
Nottingham/Wellingborough saver plus a Wellingborough Travelcard. 
There's absolutely no doubt about the validity of the tickets, although 
I need to travel on trains which stop at Wellingborough in both 
directions rather than just Bedford on the return trip. The 
inconvenience factor is about the same, but if it saves me either paying 
an extra fifty quid (the Saver/SOR difference in price is exactly 50, 
which more than *doubles* the fare, so you can see why I'm so 
interested) or having to wait to catch a train that doesn't get me home 
until 10.30pm, then catching the slower train is worth it to me over 
getting a fast. I realise these compromises won't suit everyone though.


>> >Once again, I wouldn't think that
>> >there was anything wrong in doing what you suggest - after all, you
>> >could have travelled on your return Saver as far as Bedford, then
>> >doubled back on a Day Return Bedford - Luton, before resuming your
>> >jouney northward.  But, equally, I wouldn't expect MML staff to
>> >sanction or suggest the idea.
>>
>> I don't understand why that strategy helps at all.
>
>Think about it.


I already have. Stop being so opaque (although I realise its something 
that's rather ingrained in the railway industry). Indeed, the saver 
isn't valid on MML's restricted train from Luton anyway (it's one of the 
three listed stations) hence my suggestion of changing trains at 
Bedford.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
14:38:30 on Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>But, by trying to overcome the restriction
>(the opurpose of which is fairly clear) you are trying to 'work' or
>beat the system.


Two things: "Working" the system isn't the same as "beating" it. I'm not 
looking for a loophole, but trying to understand what the rules actually 
say, so I can stay *within* them. It does the railway industry no credit 
to refuse (as the staff at Nottingham did) to even explain the rule, on 
the grounds that I might want to use the result to travel cheaper (but 
legally).

Secondly: The purpose of the rule might be one of two things. Cynically, 
it's perhaps just a ploy to get a whole tranche of people who don't 
understand exactly what they are allowed to do, to spend over twice as 
much on a more expensive ticket. On the other hand, it may be simply to 
reduce the loading on the trains concerned to an acceptable level. In 
which case my "change at Bedford" strategy is exactly what they are 
looking for, because almost everyone [1] has got off the trains in 
question by then, and there's no overloading problem at all.

If my "change at Bedford" strategy is likely to overload the Thameslink 
trains, they have the choice of banning savers in the evening, but they 
don't. I refuse to accept that using a saver on a Thameslink train in 
the evening is "beating" the system.

[1] I eventually did the trip with a saver/travelcard split at 
Wellingborough. After Bedford there were only two or three other people 
in the carriage, so had I tried the Thameslink strategy (onto that same 
train) there was no problem finding space for me.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Fair enough - I'll adopt a policy of 'If you can't beat 'em join 'em'.
> As people feel that it is OK to arbitrarily declare people trolls, I
> shall folow suit.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> The allowance for passengers joining trains at stations where the
> ticket office is closed is designed for their convenience (and,
> arguably, to allow the TOCs to close offices earlier).  It isn't
> designed to be used as a ploy to 'work' or beat the system.  In
> fairness, the OP clearly wasn't trying to beat the system (in the usual


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Anonymous wrote:


>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
>
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.


/|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Think about it.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Nomen Nescio wrote:


> "Chippy"  wrote:
>
> > Think about it.
>
>                     /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


Looks like it's time to make some new friends in other groups -
crossposted here...

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:49:49 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Actually, lots of people have said it would be invalid, including the 
>staff at Nottingham, and people posting here. The issue being, are 
>"savers from London" banned completely on the trains in question, or 
>only banned if used *south of Luton* on the trains in question? Simple 
>enough, you'd have thought, but opinions differ.


My opinion is that it is the latter, otherwise you'd be able to
circumvent it with a single to the first valid station.  It would be
nice if ATOC would make it clear somewhere, though.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 18:05:08 on Fri, 2 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>Actually, lots of people have said it would be invalid, including the
>>staff at Nottingham, and people posting here. The issue being, are
>>"savers from London" banned completely on the trains in question, or
>>only banned if used *south of Luton* on the trains in question? Simple
>>enough, you'd have thought, but opinions differ.
>
>My opinion is that it is the latter, otherwise you'd be able to
>circumvent it with a single to the first valid station.


No, that would be using the single to get to Bedford (the first station 
north of Luton) then a saver from Bedford northwards which is always 
valid all day. What I'm asking is could you do that Bedford northwards 
part of the trip on a saver ticket that started at London.


>It would be nice if ATOC would make it clear somewhere, though.


Ain't dat de troof.
-- 
Roland Perry

Chippy wrote:


> You seem determined to harp on about that point (I don't know why).
> I'm dealing solely with the case in hand.


Because it makes a nonsense of the situation Ian was in.
 

> No - it raises the issue that if you ride beyond the point that your
> ticket is valid to, you don't get a discounted fare. People who ride
> beyond their ticketed destination are often trying to avoid the fare.


True enough. But those people won't be asking the conductor to sell
them an extension ticket the first time he comes round - they will
wait until afterwards and hope he doesn't notice.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

In message , 
Chippy  writes

>James Christie wrote:
>
>>
>> You're accusing him of being a smartarse?
>>
>> Hahahaha.
>> A breathtaking example of pot and kettle here, methinks.
>> You really are looking like a troll.
>
>A weak-minded depressive like you is in no position to judge anything.
>


And you are?


>
>Fair enough - I'll adopt a policy of 'If you can't beat 'em join 'em'.
>As people feel that it is OK to arbitrarily declare people trolls, I
>shall folow suit.
>

And you feel it's ok to arbitrarily abuse people despite the fact you 
have no knowledge of the situation concerned?
-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

DERWENT Re: My Lockerbie ticket saga ... Virgin replies!
 1 Sep 2005 13:04:15 -0700, "Chippy"  


  But he has falllen foul of the fact that the efforts of a

>fairly small number of people to work the system has led to mistrust of
>the motves and methods of people doing anything unusual.



He has fallen foul of an idiotic member of railway staff who the
railway are now trying to cover up for. He has not attempted to work
the system.

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

PRAR  wrote:


>DERWENT Re: My Lockerbie ticket saga ... Virgin replies!
> 1 Sep 2005 13:04:15 -0700, "Chippy"  
>
>
>  But he has falllen foul of the fact that the efforts of a
>>fairly small number of people to work the system has led to mistrust of
>>the motves and methods of people doing anything unusual.
>
>
>He has fallen foul of an idiotic member of railway staff who the
>railway are now trying to cover up for. He has not attempted to work
>the system.



Chippy didn't say that.  Try reading Chippy's post again.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8ed9dNGhpzD6@localhost...

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:15:07 UTC, "Chippy"  wrote:
>
> : It is a staement based upon the OP's expressed opinion of railway staff
> : intelligence.
>
> If you had read my post as carefully as a personal attack in reply
> would require, you would have noticed that it's only the person who
> wrote me an illiterate letter whose abilitioes I doubt. I have said
> nothing about the generality of railway staff, for whom, including all
> but one of Virgin's Train Managers, I have a very high regard.
>
> Ian


And, just diving in here, it appears you didn't get the reply you were
supposed to get... Please let us know when you get the "next" response!

Tony

Roland Perry  wrote:

> No, I wouldn't expect then to draw my attention to it [1], but it's much 
> worse than that. The staff at Nottingham Station first refused to 
> understand the question (even denying what it said in their own 
> timetable leaflet), and when pressed produced a more senior person who 
> refused to discuss it with me as I was apparently "trying to beat the 
> system". The printed rules are so opaque that even after two attempts on 
> this newsgroup to get nearer to what they might actually be saying, has 
> brought no conclusion.


I don't mean to state the obvious, but have you tried writing to MML to ask
for clarification?  As it's them who make the rules, surely it's they who
are going to be involved in any dispute?  You might argue that they are
going to give a reply that is most favourable to them instead of what the
rules actually do say, but (assuming the written rules take precedence) you
can take them to task if what they say is a contradiction as we saw in the
GNER case.  And if they give a positive reply you have a piece of paper to
wave in front of any RPI who queries you.

Theo

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Looks like it's time to make some new friends in other groups -
> crossposted here...


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> /|  /|      _____________________
>                     ||__||     |                     |
>                    /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
>                   /          \ | FEED THE ARSEHOLES  |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message <9jd*7BNXq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 18:22:53 on Sat, 
3 Sep 2005, Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>I don't mean to state the obvious, but have you tried writing to MML to ask
>for clarification?  As it's them who make the rules, surely it's they who
>are going to be involved in any dispute?  You might argue that they are
>going to give a reply that is most favourable to them instead of what the
>rules actually do say, but (assuming the written rules take precedence) you
>can take them to task if what they say is a contradiction as we saw in the
>GNER case.  And if they give a positive reply you have a piece of paper to
>wave in front of any RPI who queries you.


Yes, I will get around to that one day. I did make the effort of going 
to Nottingham (one of their main stations) to ask there, but got 
rebuffed, as I've described. However, I needed the answer quite soon 
(much quicker than I could possibly hope for a reply to a letter), 
because I had a ticket to buy.
-- 
Roland Perry

screw em

cawdronhardy@gmail.com wrote:

> screw em


Yeah, but at least take them out for a meal or a movie first :-)

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message <9jd*7BNXq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 18:22:53 on Sat,
> 3 Sep 2005, Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >I don't mean to state the obvious, but have you tried writing to MML to ask
> >for clarification?

> Yes, I will get around to that one day. I did make the effort of going
> to Nottingham (one of their main stations) to ask there, but got
> rebuffed, as I've described. However, I needed the answer quite soon
> (much quicker than I could possibly hope for a reply to a letter),
> because I had a ticket to buy.


So you are more interested in moaning about it than in finding the
answer.

Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
would ask them for their opinion.

In message , at 
13:01:06 on Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>> >I don't mean to state the obvious, but have you tried writing to MML to ask
>> >for clarification?
>
>> Yes, I will get around to that one day. I did make the effort of going
>> to Nottingham (one of their main stations) to ask there, but got
>> rebuffed, as I've described. However, I needed the answer quite soon
>> (much quicker than I could possibly hope for a reply to a letter),
>> because I had a ticket to buy.
>
>So you are more interested in moaning about it than in finding the
>answer.


Having been prevented from buying the ticket I wanted, at the time I 
wanted it, the priority for finding out the "answer" is somewhat 
reduced. That's my moan. If the ticket is invalid, I'll accept that 
(assuming they correct their what would be then shown to be misleading 
information). Clarity is what I seek.


>Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
>would ask them for their opinion.


The ticket isn't "MML only", and Thameslink specifically allow savers 
throughout the evening rush.

I suppose there's an outside chance that there's a "funny" in the 
routing guide that means a ticket from Nottingham isn't valid to KX 
Thameslink as a "London Terminal". If that's what you are suggesting, 
I'll certainly look into it.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> The ticket isn't "MML only", and Thameslink specifically allow savers
> throughout the evening rush.


Do you know if this is the case on WAGN?

I once asked at the ticket office at King's Cross and they said no.
However they didn't fully know what they were talking about as they
said WAGN-only Savers are not valid on WAGN trains during peak time,
but I know for a fact that they are.

Do WAGN have a policy of "No Any Permitted Savers, but WAGN only Savers
are OK"?

Neither Thameslink nor WAGN seem to explain their ticket policies on
their website (unless I am missing something), this is in contrast to
GNER who give full prices and a full list of restrictions for all
ticket types!

On 4 Sep 2005 13:31:47 -0700, "Yorkie"  wrote:


>Neither Thameslink nor WAGN seem to explain their ticket policies on
>their website (unless I am missing something), this is in contrast to
>GNER who give full prices and a full list of restrictions for all
>ticket types!


Their own ones.  But when someone comes along with something even
slightly out of the ordinary, they throw their toys out of the pram
and have the rules changed in their favour.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 4 Sep 2005 13:01:06 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:


>Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
>would ask them for their opinion.


I'm not sure it is.  I think the contentious bit is boarding the MML
service at Bedford.

My interpretation of the rules has always been that they are based on
a combination of ticket and train.  Thus, a Saver Return from London
to Nottingham is not valid throughout on the 1730[1] London-Nottingham
service, whether you board it at St Pancras or Beeston.

Whether a Saver Return from London to Nottingham is valid on the
1731[1] Thameslink to Bedford I have no idea, but I would consider
this a separate issue.

The reason why I think this way is that you can't, unless you're
GNER[2], ban all Savers from a specific train, as there remain some
ex-Regional Railways flows where the Saver is the most expensive,
unrestricted ticket.  These flows may well involve use of an IC train
with "Saver restrictions".  There are even examples within IC - the
Saver is the unrestricted ticket from Scotland to London, as I recall.

[1] I don't know if this exists, it's just an example.

[2] I wouldn't put it past them, anyway.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 
13:31:47 on Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Yorkie  remarked:

>
>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> The ticket isn't "MML only", and Thameslink specifically allow savers
>> throughout the evening rush.
>
>Do you know if this is the case on WAGN?
>
>I once asked at the ticket office at King's Cross and they said no.
>However they didn't fully know what they were talking about as they
>said WAGN-only Savers are not valid on WAGN trains during peak time,
>but I know for a fact that they are.
>
>Do WAGN have a policy of "No Any Permitted Savers, but WAGN only Savers
>are OK"?


I'm not sure there are any "WAGN only savers". You can get "WAGN Only" 
offpeak travelcards, which is slightly different.


>Neither Thameslink nor WAGN seem to explain their ticket policies on
>their website (unless I am missing something), this is in contrast to
>GNER who give full prices and a full list of restrictions for all
>ticket types!


One reason GNER have to explain things so fully is because they have so 
many rules. I used to travel between Peterborough and London and at one 
point they had a whole leaftlet explaining which tickets were available 
on what trains! (And it varied depending on your ticket, is the out or 
return portion, as well as the time of day and direction of travel...)

For Thameslink, see their timetable:

http://www.thameslink.co.uk/content/doc/cms/britobedmf.pdf

.... which red-line/colour-codes the validity of "Off peak" tickets. 
(From which you can see that it's simply "after 9am", no evening 
restriction) That must be *all* off peak tickets as they don't qualify 
the statement at all. If MML did the same thing, it would be simplicity 
itself!

The WAGN site is remarkably silent about off peak tickets in general, 
never mind their availability. So I think you'd either have to ask to 
see the fares manual, or try booking a ticket online and see what you 
are offered.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <zlz3Hhxbu+GDFATN@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk>, at
07:54:19 on Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Roland Perry  remarked:

>
>The WAGN site is remarkably silent about off peak tickets in general,
>never mind their availability. So I think you'd either have to ask to
>see the fares manual, or try booking a ticket online and see what you
>are offered.


Voila: rule 7A [This is for a saver ticket to/from Nottingham via
                Grantham, but it may well apply to all savers]

        "Joining at Kings Cross:  By any train except those timed to
        depart before 0929 and from 1459 to 1859 inclusive. Restrictions
        apply to GNER, Hull Trains & WAGN Trains"

However, that would seem to allow you to join a WAGN at Finsbury Park,
so a bit inconvenient but perhaps the journey isn't totally barred.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:45:14 on Sun, 4 Sep
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>On 4 Sep 2005 13:01:06 -0700, "Chippy"  wrote:
>
>>Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
>>would ask them for their opinion.
>
>I'm not sure it is.  I think the contentious bit is boarding the MML
>service at Bedford.
>
>My interpretation of the rules has always been that they are based on
>a combination of ticket and train.  Thus, a Saver Return from London
>to Nottingham is not valid throughout on the 1730[1] London-Nottingham
>service, whether you board it at St Pancras or Beeston.
>
>Whether a Saver Return from London to Nottingham is valid on the
>1731[1] Thameslink to Bedford I have no idea, but I would consider
>this a separate issue.
>
>The reason why I think this way is that you can't, unless you're
>GNER[2], ban all Savers from a specific train, as there remain some
>ex-Regional Railways flows where the Saver is the most expensive,
>unrestricted ticket.  These flows may well involve use of an IC train
>with "Saver restrictions".  There are even examples within IC - the
>Saver is the unrestricted ticket from Scotland to London, as I recall.


The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to "Journeys
from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and beyond", which
if a journey is the entire ticketed to/from would include flows from
(eg) a Guildford to Derby via London Saver. Assuming that Guildford is
typical of what they mean by "beyond" St Pancras.

Of course, KX Thameslink isn't "beyond" St Pancras, as there's no train
service between the two stations. Arguably they are also logically *the
same* station if you wholeheartedly embrace the "London Terminals"
concept. But the MML restriction says "St Pancras" and *not* "London
Terminals". (Although one of the arguments that the chap at Nottingham
trotted out was the timetable had a misprint and *ought* to have said
"London Terminals".)

Meanwhile, the Fares Manual apparently says:

        "Joining at: London St Pancras, Luton or Luton Airport Parkway

        "Valid by any train timed to depart London St Pancras before
        0230, between 0925 and 1555 inclusive, and from 1925 inclusive."

Which means the ticket *is* valid because I'm *joining* at Bedford!! The
rule can't apply to Thameslink trains because none of them depart StP
(well, not any more...)

ps. If I buy Nottingham/Bedford and Bedford/KX-Thameslink savers, they
are both undoubtedly valid on the trains concerned, and costs 4.30
*less* than the end-to-end saver. MML, in particular, will be getting
substantially less revenue if that's what I buy (as Thameslink will be
getting a share of the Bedford ticket, on top of the 4.30 overall
reduction). The drawback, however, is that I have to catch a train which
stops at Bedford on the way to London. There are only two trains in the
morning where the combination of setting off after 9am from Nottingham,
and MML's restrictions south of Bedford would mean actually *changing*
trains.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to "Journeys
> from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and beyond", which
> if a journey is the entire ticketed to/from would include flows from
> (eg) a Guildford to Derby via London Saver. Assuming that Guildford is
> typical of what they mean by "beyond" St Pancras.


To get an answer to this, why don't you just e-mail MML saying
something like: "I'm travelling to London on a Saver, and will then be
returning to Bedford where I will be breaking my return journey.  Are
there any restrictions on which afternoon/evening trains I can use to
complete my return from there to Nottingham,?"

If they say that there are no restrictions, you have your answer.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> So you are more interested in moaning about it than in finding the
> answer.
> Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
> would ask them for their opinion.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message , at 
02:05:52 on Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Chippy  remarked:

>
>> The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to "Journeys
>> from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and beyond", which
>> if a journey is the entire ticketed to/from would include flows from
>> (eg) a Guildford to Derby via London Saver. Assuming that Guildford is
>> typical of what they mean by "beyond" St Pancras.
>
>To get an answer to this, why don't you just e-mail MML saying
>something like: "I'm travelling to London on a Saver, and will then be
>returning to Bedford where I will be breaking my return journey.  Are
>there any restrictions on which afternoon/evening trains I can use to
>complete my return from there to Nottingham,?"
>
>If they say that there are no restrictions, you have your answer.


First of all, there's no email address I can see on their website for 
questions, just a web page for "email" comments. Secondly, they are 
extremely likely to answer that question with the wording on the 
timetable, which is what we already know to be inadequate to properly 
understand the situation (and differs from the Fares Manual).

I will write them a letter, maybe later today.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


>
> First of all, there's no email address I can see on their website for
> questions, just a web page for "email" comments.


The only one I can see is 'feedback@..', which does seem a bit of an
oversight.  I'd still try it.


> Secondly, they are
> extremely likely to answer that question with the wording on the
> timetable, which is what we already know to be inadequate to properly
> understand the situation (and differs from the Fares Manual).


I think I'd mention the wording, in order to avoid them just quoting
it.


> 
> I will write them a letter, maybe later today.


Good.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:31:28 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to "Journeys
>from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and beyond"


The last time I checked, Kings Cross Thameslink was beyond both Luton
and Luton Airport Parkway.  Mind you, I guess we're getting down to
grammar pedrantry in defining ticketing rules, which can't be good.

I don't see why these restrictions cannot be expressed in simple
terms, such as:-

"Saver tickets from London Terminals to Nottingham are not valid
throughout the journey of any Midland Mainline train departing London
St Pancras between 1600 and 1900", for example.  I think this is the
spirit of the restriction, so why can't it be written unambiguously
like that in all documentation?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> So you are more interested in moaning about it than in finding the
> answer.
> Personally, as the 'contentious' bit of the journey is by Thameslink, I
> would ask them for their opinion.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

In message , at 17:56:43 on Mon, 5 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:31:28 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to "Journeys
>>from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and beyond"
>
>The last time I checked, Kings Cross Thameslink was beyond both Luton
>and Luton Airport Parkway.


Yes, I suppose it's beyond Luton, but still maintain it's not beyond St 
Pancras. Obviously, the spirit of this expression of the rule is to 
catch people who might have a saver from (eg) Guildford to north of 
Luton. And never forget that the fares manual rule talks about *joining* 
at Luton, Luton Airport or St Pancras. Which would still catch the 
Guildford people, but explicitly doesn't say Luton, Luton Airport and 
London Terminals (which would catch KX Thameslink).


>  Mind you, I guess we're getting down to
>grammar pedrantry in defining ticketing rules, which can't be good.


This is the problem. And we can be sure that the railway system will 
pursue the pedantry to limits of their advantage, when it suits them.


>I don't see why these restrictions cannot be expressed in simple
>terms, such as:-
>
>"Saver tickets from London Terminals to Nottingham are not valid
>throughout the journey of any Midland Mainline train departing London
>St Pancras between 1600 and 1900", for example.  I think this is the
>spirit of the restriction, so why can't it be written unambiguously
>like that in all documentation?


Well, I'll dispute that this is actually the spirit, because they are 
quite happy for people to use [other] savers north of Bedford. So why 
penalise *just* savers issued to places south of there.

However, the clarity could be much better. The Thameslink timetable is 
vastly  clearer about where and when savers are valid.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:


> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:31:28 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
> 
> >The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to 
> >"Journeys from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and 
> >beyond"
> 
> The last time I checked, Kings Cross Thameslink was beyond both 
> Luton and Luton Airport Parkway.


Is there a route from, say, Bedford to London St.Pancras which 
bypasses Luton and its merry Parkway?  If not, then why is St.P[1] 
mentioned explicitly in that collection, would you say, since eny fule 
can see that St.Pancras is "beyond" Luton in this sense?  The fact 
that St.P is mentioned at all surely means that it, and only it, is 
meant, to the exclusion of any other London terminals/stations?


> Mind you, I guess we're getting down to
> grammar pedrantry in defining ticketing rules, which can't be good.


You can be sure the TOC will do the pedantry, when push comes to 
shove: in fact some of them (as we've seen here more than once) go 
further, and flagrantly deny the terms of their own contract.  What's 
so very wrong with the customer using the pedantry to their own 
advantage? The retail customer doesn't have the opportunity to set the 
rules, after all: they are limited to interpreting what's laid before 
them.

best

[1] the patron saint of rumbletum - SCNR.

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


>Is there a route from, say, Bedford to London St.Pancras which 
>bypasses Luton and its merry Parkway?  



Bedford-Bletchley (Silverlink),
Bletchley-Euston (Silverlink),
Then walk or run to St Pancras.

;-)

In message , at 
21:50:58 on Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>> >The MML restriction as expressed in their timetable refers to
>> >"Journeys from Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, London St Pancras and
>> >beyond"
>>
>> The last time I checked, Kings Cross Thameslink was beyond both
>> Luton and Luton Airport Parkway.
>
>Is there a route from, say, Bedford to London St.Pancras which
>bypasses Luton and its merry Parkway?

No.

>If not, then why is St.P[1]
>mentioned explicitly in that collection, would you say, since eny fule
>can see that St.Pancras is "beyond" Luton in this sense?  The fact
>that St.P is mentioned at all surely means that it, and only it, is
>meant, to the exclusion of any other London terminals/stations?


A very good point.


>> Mind you, I guess we're getting down to
>> grammar pedrantry in defining ticketing rules, which can't be good.
>
>You can be sure the TOC will do the pedantry, when push comes to
>shove: in fact some of them (as we've seen here more than once) go
>further, and flagrantly deny the terms of their own contract.  What's
>so very wrong with the customer using the pedantry to their own
>advantage?


It's not even as bad as that. If the rules have a choice of using (say) 
StP or London Terminals, and choose StP, then the traveller *has* to 
assume there's a very precise (aka pedantic) reason for that and 
interpret the rule accordingly.

It is ludicrous for a railway employee (as happened to me) to insist 
that this was a "misprint", because only by being such a misprint would 
it support his point of view.


>The retail customer doesn't have the opportunity to set the
>rules, after all: they are limited to interpreting what's laid before
>them.


-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:05:06 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Bedford-Bletchley (Silverlink),
>Bletchley-Euston (Silverlink),
>Then walk or run to St Pancras.
>
>;-)


Supposedly permitted, but the season ticket from Bedford to London is
cheaper than Bletchley to London, so I'm not sure on what grounds;
perhaps the S*S from Bedford is more expensive...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Good.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 





(This program will terminate today.)

"Chippy"  wrote: 


> Good.


                    /|  /|      _____________________
                    ||__||     |                     |
                   /   O O\__  |    PLEASE DO NOT    |
                  /          \ |   FEED THE TROLLS   |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ 





(This program will terminate today.)

In article , Alan 
J. Flavell  writes

>Is there a route from, say, Bedford to London St.Pancras which
>bypasses Luton and its merry Parkway?


Two obvious ones:

Bedford-Bletchley-Watford Jn-St.Albans-St.Pancras.

Bedford-Bletchley-Willesden Jn-West Hampstead-St.Pancras.

[I'm not claiming either are Permitted for any particular journey, but 
they both exist on appropriate map combinations.]


>What's
>so very wrong with the customer using the pedantry to their own
>advantage? The retail customer doesn't have the opportunity to set the
>rules, after all: they are limited to interpreting what's laid before
>them.


Indeed. Particular since there are criminal penalties for getting it 
wrong.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: