I have already bought an advance-purchase first class ticket for a
long journey.

I have just been called for a job interview on the morning of my date
of travel. The interview is in Bristol, near to a station that I would
pass through on my original journey. I have plenty of time to buy a
ticket for an earlier train to Bristol, attend the interview, and
return to the station in Bristol in time to join the train on which I
am booked as it passes through there. However, I am not allowed to do
this, since my advance-purchase ticket is only valid for the journey
as originally booked. It has no refund value and cannot be changed. So
what I am supposed to do is throw it away and buy completely new
tickets for my journey.

Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards? After all, I
would be buying a new ticket for the journey to Bristol and so would
be paying more for my travels that day than originally planned.

And the practical question: how likely is it that the ticket collector
will notice that I had not been on the train for the first hour of my
journey? Bear in mind that there are not that many passengers in first
class. And is s/he really likely to mind that much? (The train company
is Cross Country.)

wrote in message 
news:f2bd1fe6-fa59-4313-a545-3b8753516497@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I have already bought an advance-purchase first class ticket for a
> long journey.
>

> And the practical question: how likely is it that the ticket collector
> will notice that I had not been on the train for the first hour of my
> journey? Bear in mind that there are not that many passengers in first
> class. And is s/he really likely to mind that much? (The train company
> is Cross Country.)

I think the only practicality you need to consider is whether or not you can 
access the platform at BTM to get on the train.

But what the TM does or doesn't do, who can predict - as you say, FC pax are 
a small number, and don't XC have a first class 'host', someone else to 
notice your recent arrival?

Paul

david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:

> Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
> original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards? 

About as wrong as riding your bike on the pavement when
there are no pedestrians about ;-)

I'd say the conductor might well notice, and from what
I have heard about some of these people, you'd end up
being obliged to buy a full open first class single.

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> I'd say the conductor might well notice, and from what
> I have heard about some of these people, you'd end up
> being obliged to buy a full open first class single.

Especially given that no starting late/finishing early is now a
clearly stated term for all advance tickets and no longer an obscure
one on one or two TOCs.

Neil

On 1 Jul, 12:40, "Paul Scott"  wrote:
> But what the TM does or doesn't do, who can predict - as you say, FC pax are
> a small number, and don't XC have a first class 'host', someone else to
> notice your recent arrival?

XC do have a first class host on weekdays, before 8pm. You will get
noticed.....With the update to Advance T&Cs noted above, I think
you're chances of being charged full fare are quite high.

THat's the chance you take when you buy a cheap advance ticket....

david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:

> Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
> original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards?

Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
railway, and you are seeking to break that contract, so it's hard to see
why you need anyone else's opinion about morality - are you really not
able to work it out for yourself?

What would you think of the morality of the railway if, let us say,
having sold you the ticket for the journey, they then resold your booked
seat to someone else who was willing to pay more, and you were barred
from the train?
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632813.html
(31 407 at London Kings Cross, 22 Nov 1980)

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
news:beengs2u1nj3$.cfv8nl2m349x$.dlg@40tude.net...
> david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
>> original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards?
>
> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract, so it's hard to see
> why you need anyone else's opinion about morality - are you really not
> able to work it out for yourself?

Legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Morally I see nothing wrong with 
wanting to be able to change his travel plans.

The problem is that the ticket has no refund value. If your travel plans 
change, morally you should be able to get a full refund and then pay *only* 
for the non-discounted fare for the new journey. Being required to pay twice 
over - once for the journey that you can't make and then all over again for 
the new journey - looks like an attempt by the railway to sell the same seat 
twice over - and that should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive 
terms that you are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted 
fare.

Mortimer wrote:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
> news:beengs2u1nj3$.cfv8nl2m349x$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
>>> original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards?
>>
>> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
>> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
>> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
>> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract, so it's hard to see
>> why you need anyone else's opinion about morality - are you really not
>> able to work it out for yourself?
> 
> Legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Morally I see nothing wrong with 
> wanting to be able to change his travel plans.
> 
> The problem is that the ticket has no refund value. If your travel
> plans change, morally you should be able to get a full refund and
> then pay *only* for the non-discounted fare for the new journey.

Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
for both.

> Being required to pay twice over - once for the journey that you can't
> make and then all over again for the new journey - looks like an
> attempt by the railway to sell the same seat twice over - and that
> should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive terms that you
> are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted fare.

Your argument would be fine if that were the only ticket the railway
offered, but the railway also offers tickets which do enable people to
change their travel plans. They just cost more. People can freely choose
to buy a restricted or an unrestricted ticket, to suit their needs.

The OP asked a question of morality. The morality of the situation is
clear, in that if he wanted the facility to change his travel plans, he
could have parted with the extra cash up front. He chose not to do that,
but still wants the benefits as if he had done. And from the original
post, it is quite clear that he understands that the ticket he has is
only valid if used to make the specific journey it was booked for.

I really don't understand the basis of your argument. There are many
things in this life that carry an element of risk, and every now and
again, someone who takes a risk will be caught out by it. But the choice
to take it remains entirely voluntary. 

There's no evidence whatsoever that the railway is trying to sell the
same seat twice. Clearly it has sold it once on very advantageous terms
to the purchaser. The railway will most assuredly not be selling *that*
seat again, though it may well sell walk-up tickets that exceed the
carrying capacity of a particular train, but that's an entirely
different issue.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632904.html
(37 034 at London Liverpool Street, 13 Apr 1980)

"Mortimer"  wrote:
>
>Legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Morally I see nothing wrong with 
>wanting to be able to change his travel plans.


That's nonsense, because changing his plans without buying a new
ticket or tickets for the outward leg of the journey would mean he is
fraudulently using a ticket.  If it is legally wrong, it is also
morally wrong, unless you have a twisted sense of morality which tells
you that fraud is morally right.


>The problem is that the ticket has no refund value. If your travel plans 
>change, morally you should be able to get a full refund and then pay *only* 
>for the non-discounted fare for the new journey. 


Rubbish.  You get a substantial discount from the full fare in return
for accepting strict restrictions on your journey.  If you accept the
discount, you are deemed to have accepted the restrictions.  If you
don't accept the restrictions, and refuse to travel within them, you
are not entitled to travel at all, because you have violated your
contract with the seller of the ticket.


>Being required to pay twice 
>over - once for the journey that you can't make and then all over again for 
>the new journey - looks like an attempt by the railway to sell the same seat 
>twice over - and that should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive 
>terms that you are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted 
>fare. 


Don't be silly.  The OP bought the ticket for a journey that he can no
longer make.  He is making a distinctly different journey, one that
happens to be along the same route but is still a different journey.
The original ticket he bought is not valid for that journey.

The OP signed up to the rules by buying the ticket in the first place.
If he wants to change his plans, that's fine.  But he bought an
inflexible ticket to obtain a significant saving in price, and it is
no good bleating that the inflexible ticket he bought is inflexible.
Those are the restrictions that it came with, after all.  All the OP
needs to do is buy another ticket(s) for the outward leg(s) of the
journey.

And he still gets to use the return portion of the heavily discounted
ticket, as long as he is prepared to abide by the conditions he has
contracted to accept.

Chris Tolley wrote:

> What would you think of the morality of the railway if, let us say,
> having sold you the ticket for the journey, they then resold your booked
> seat to someone else who was willing to pay more, and you were barred
> from the train?

Like airlines actually *do* do, you mean?

Neil

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:2aek645ik694tnrcb36th54ccd8j2lml28@4ax.com...
> "Mortimer"  wrote:
>>
>>Legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Morally I see nothing wrong with
>>wanting to be able to change his travel plans.
>
> That's nonsense, because changing his plans without buying a new
> ticket or tickets for the outward leg of the journey would mean he is
> fraudulently using a ticket.  If it is legally wrong, it is also
> morally wrong, unless you have a twisted sense of morality which tells
> you that fraud is morally right.

No, I don't accept that it is fraud. I believe that the right either to get 
a
refund or else to transfer an unused product (one or other at the discretion 
of the vendor) should be an inalienable one that cannot be signed away by 
imposition of a contract. Probably a pipe-dream, but I'm looking at the 
situation from the consumer's eyes, which no-one else seems to be doing.

I fully accept that it would be wrong to try it use the incorrect ticket,
but if the plans change, the original ticket should not become worthless. In
the "bottle of milk" analogy elsewhere in the thread, you can at least give
away or sell the milk that you no longer want, but you cannot do this with a
railway ticket.

The railway company has made more money by selling you two tickets than it
would if it only sold you one (either the APEX or the walk-on) and it does
not seem right to me that they should profit by someone's mistake.

Neil  Williams  wrote:
> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
> > I'd say the conductor might well notice, and from what
> > I have heard about some of these people, you'd end up
> > being obliged to buy a full open first class single.
> 
> Especially given that no starting late/finishing early is now a
> clearly stated term for all advance tickets and no longer an obscure
> one on one or two TOCs.

Boarded a FGW HST yesterday.  TM was 'Mr Grumpy', who at every station
proceeded to reel out reams of dire-sounding threats including a long list
of tickets where you had to take the specified train (I thought there was
only one type now, called 'Advance'?), exhortations to leave tables free for
families, and stated that holders of Advance, First LEI, etc, etc had to sit
in their specified seat.

So if you start late and your specified seat is filled by someone else,
you're a bit stuck.  You can't turf them out, because they've probably been
sitting in the seat since after you were supposed to join the train.  You
can't sit somewhere else because then the TM will ask why you aren't in your
allocated seat.  I suppose you could hang around the buffet car or a
vestibule or sit on the loo for the journey...

Theo

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net...


>>> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
>>> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
>>> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
>>> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract ...

> ... The OP asked a question of morality. The morality of the situation is
> clear, in that if he wanted the facility to change his travel plans, he
> could have parted with the extra cash up front. He chose not to do that,
> but still wants the benefits as if he had done. ...

> ... There's no evidence whatsoever that the railway is trying to sell the
> same seat twice.


My initial reaction was that I completely agreed with you (and I would
normally argue that the terms and conditions of a ticket ought to be
respected).  But on further reflection -  I'm not quite so sure in this
particular case.

Supposing I'd purchased a discounted advance ticket from A-C (passing
through B) and was then prevented (e.g. by illness, or some other reasonable
cause) from travelling anywhere at all on that day.  Would that count as
breaking my contract with the company?   After all - they'd still have
received revenue for a journey from A-C at a level which they were willing
to accept at the time of booking.  And they wouldn't have been able to sell
that same Advance Ticket to anybody else - the seat on that train would just
remain empty.

Morally, would anybody then still expect me to send the company the price of
a full-rate ticket from A-C, to compensate them for my breach of the initial
contract?  If not - how would it differ from the scenario raised by the
Original Poster?

It seems that he wants to leave the seat empty from A-B, and then to use his
Advance Ticket to travel from B-C?   Would that still be morally wrong?

AJ

On Jul 1, 4:34 pm, "A Jones"  wrote:
> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
>
> news:1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> >>> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
> >>> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
> >>> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
> >>> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract ...
> > ... The OP asked a question of morality. The morality of the situation is
> > clear, in that if he wanted the facility to change his travel plans, he
> > could have parted with the extra cash up front. He chose not to do that,
> > but still wants the benefits as if he had done. ...
> > ... There's no evidence whatsoever that the railway is trying to sell the
> > same seat twice.
>
> My initial reaction was that I completely agreed with you (and I would
> normally argue that the terms and conditions of a ticket ought to be
> respected).  But on further reflection -  I'm not quite so sure in this
> particular case.
>
> Supposing I'd purchased a discounted advance ticket from A-C (passing
> through B) and was then prevented (e.g. by illness, or some other reasonable
> cause) from travelling anywhere at all on that day.  Would that count as
> breaking my contract with the company?   After all - they'd still have
> received revenue for a journey from A-C at a level which they were willing
> to accept at the time of booking.  And they wouldn't have been able to sell
> that same Advance Ticket to anybody else - the seat on that train would just
> remain empty.
>
> Morally, would anybody then still expect me to send the company the price of
> a full-rate ticket from A-C, to compensate them for my breach of the initial
> contract?  If not - how would it differ from the scenario raised by the
> Original Poster?
>
> It seems that he wants to leave the seat empty from A-B, and then to use his
> Advance Ticket to travel from B-C?   Would that still be morally wrong?
>
> AJ

Yes, that is exactly how I see the situation.

On a practical note, suppose that I buy a standard class ticket for
the B-C section, but still travel in first class and offer the ticket
collector the invalid first class ticket.  If s/he accepts it, fine.
If not, s/he will presumably explain why it is invalid, in which case
I apologise, produce the standard class ticket that I bought "just in
case" and move to standard.  Or would I face further difficulties?

In message <1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net>
          Chris  Tolley  wrote:

> Mortimer wrote:
> 
> > "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message 
> > news:beengs2u1nj3$.cfv8nl2m349x$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now, does anyone think that it would be morally wrong to use the
> >>> original ticket for my journey from Bristol onwards?
> >>
> >> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
> >> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
> >> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
> >> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract, so it's hard to see
> >> why you need anyone else's opinion about morality - are you really not
> >> able to work it out for yourself?
> > 
> > Legally he hasn't got a leg to stand on. Morally I see nothing wrong with 
> > wanting to be able to change his travel plans.
> > 
> > The problem is that the ticket has no refund value. If your travel
> > plans change, morally you should be able to get a full refund and
> > then pay *only* for the non-discounted fare for the new journey.
> 
> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
> for both.

But you can drink the milk later, you can't use the train ticket later.

[snip]

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

In message , at 16:34:53 on 
Tue, 1 Jul 2008, A Jones  remarked:
>Supposing I'd purchased a discounted advance ticket from A-C (passing
>through B) and was then prevented (e.g. by illness, or some other reasonable
>cause) from travelling anywhere at all on that day.  Would that count as
>breaking my contract with the company?   After all - they'd still have
>received revenue for a journey from A-C at a level which they were willing
>to accept at the time of booking.  And they wouldn't have been able to sell
>that same Advance Ticket to anybody else - the seat on that train would just
>remain empty.
>
>Morally, would anybody then still expect me to send the company the price of
>a full-rate ticket from A-C, to compensate them for my breach of the initial
>contract?

Of course not.

> If not - how would it differ from the scenario raised by the
>Original Poster?

Apart from it being a daft scenario, there is nothing to compensate. The 
ToC has not lost any revenue.

>It seems that he wants to leave the seat empty from A-B, and then to use his
>Advance Ticket to travel from B-C?   Would that still be morally wrong?

In this case the ToC has lost the revenue of a new A-C ticket (with a 
break at B, in the OP's case).

-- 
Roland Perry

A Jones wrote:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
> news:1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 
>>>> Well, the fact is that you have entered into a contract (and it is a
>>>> contract with restricted and quite specific terms, in consideration of
>>>> which you have received a substantial discount on the fare) with the
>>>> railway, and you are seeking to break that contract ...
> 
>> ... The OP asked a question of morality. The morality of the situation is
>> clear, in that if he wanted the facility to change his travel plans, he
>> could have parted with the extra cash up front. He chose not to do that,
>> but still wants the benefits as if he had done. ...
> 
>> ... There's no evidence whatsoever that the railway is trying to sell the
>> same seat twice.
> 
> My initial reaction was that I completely agreed with you (and I would
> normally argue that the terms and conditions of a ticket ought to be
> respected).  But on further reflection -  I'm not quite so sure in this
> particular case.
> 
> Supposing I'd purchased a discounted advance ticket from A-C (passing
> through B) and was then prevented (e.g. by illness, or some other reasonable
> cause) from travelling anywhere at all on that day.  Would that count as
> breaking my contract with the company?   

No, you have in effect paid for permission to travel. You are not under
any obligation to do so.

> After all - they'd still have
> received revenue for a journey from A-C at a level which they were willing
> to accept at the time of booking.  And they wouldn't have been able to sell
> that same Advance Ticket to anybody else - the seat on that train would just
> remain empty.
> 
> Morally, would anybody then still expect me to send the company the price of
> a full-rate ticket from A-C, to compensate them for my breach of the initial
> contract?  If not - how would it differ from the scenario raised by the
> Original Poster?

Well, it differs in exactly the same way as you have indicated below.
 
> It seems that he wants to leave the seat empty from A-B, and then to use his
> Advance Ticket to travel from B-C?   Would that still be morally wrong?

It depends on what the bedrock of one's morality is, and the frame of
reference. 

In a case where someone wants to get from A to B then B to C (all on the
same route) and there are cheap tickets for specific journeys from A to
C, but no cheap tickets from A to B or B to C, then it could easily
happen that the cheap ticket A to C is actually cheaper than the
available fare for either of the parts. 

Someone who purchases a cheap AC and a normal BC ticket might convince
themselves that they are paying twice for part of the service and
therefore losing out. 

But it's also true that they are paying the railway less than the
railway expects for that particular split itinerary, so the railway is
losing revenue. On top of that, they are potentially denying a third
party (because these cheap tickets are limited) who actually does want
to travel from A to C at a time when the restrictions on the cheap
ticket are no problem the opportunity of doing that, and putting them
out of pocket. 

So, when one looks at the bigger picture, the morality is certainly
questionable.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632874.html
(A 33/1+4-TC combination at London Waterloo: 33 104, 28 Mar 1981)

Neil Williams wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
> 
>> What would you think of the morality of the railway if, let us say,
>> having sold you the ticket for the journey, they then resold your booked
>> seat to someone else who was willing to pay more, and you were barred
>> from the train?
> 
> Like airlines actually *do* do, you mean?

If that is what they do, then yes, I guess I do, but I wasn't having a
dig at airlines. 

Though they certainly deserve it if that is how they behave. Not being a
very frequent flier, how is that situation described in the T&C?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632841.html
(33 026 at Basingstoke, 20 Apr 1996)

Graeme Wall wrote:

> In message <1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net>
>           Chris  Tolley  wrote:

>> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
>> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
>> for both.
> 
> But you can drink the milk later, you can't use the train ticket later.

Not if it's gone off. 

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632896.html
(33 117 *in the middle* of a train at Weymouth Quay, 31 Dec 1989)

In message 
          Chris  Tolley  wrote:

> Graeme Wall wrote:
> 
> > In message <1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net>
> >           Chris  Tolley  wrote:
> 
> >> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
> >> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
> >> for both.
> > 
> > But you can drink the milk later, you can't use the train ticket later.
> 
> Not if it's gone off. 
> 

Well that's what happened to the train, it went off...

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

"Chris Tolley" <c> wrote in message
news:1d5cuqk37pjwm$.foymy4b8ve8f.dlg@40tude.net...

> No, you have in effect paid for permission to travel. You are not under
> any obligation to do so ...

> In a case where someone wants to get from A to B then B to C (all on the
> same route) and there are cheap tickets for specific journeys from A to
> C, but no cheap tickets from A to B or B to C, then it could easily
> happen that the cheap ticket A to C is actually cheaper than the
> available fare for either of the parts.
>
> Someone who purchases a cheap AC and a normal BC ticket might convince
> themselves that they are paying twice for part of the service and
> therefore losing out.
>
> But it's also true that they are paying the railway less than the
> railway expects for that particular split itinerary, so the railway is
> losing revenue.

But if  I'm making alternative arrangements for getting from A-B (and paying
extra for them), then the railway company is gaining revenue on top of what
it would otherwise have received for the A-C journey.  So I am the one who
is  losing out.  And you've already previously written that whilst I've paid
for permission to travel from station A, I am actually under no obligation
to do so (i.e. the seat could be left empty).  It's not as though I was
attempting to travel from A-B without paying.

> On top of that, they are potentially denying a third
> party (because these cheap tickets are limited) who actually does want
> to travel from A to C at a time when the restrictions on the cheap
> ticket are no problem the opportunity of doing that, and putting them
> out of pocket.

No - that last bit is certainly not correct.  I thought we'd already agreed
that the company wouldn't have been able to sell the Advance Ticket (which
I'd already purchased at the advertised price) to anybody else.

And once I've purchased my discounted Advance Ticket, I (probably quite
justifiably) cannot then expect to be given the option of surrendering it
for reimbursement if my travel plans subsequently change.

[continued below]

David <@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d14d935b-5cfd-4437-b07e-8c63bb5e6c3a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> Yes, that is exactly how I see the situation.
>
> On a practical note, suppose that I buy a standard class ticket for
> the B-C section, but still travel in first class and offer the ticket
> collector the invalid first class ticket.  If s/he accepts it, fine.
> If not, s/he will presumably explain why it is invalid, in which case
> I apologise, produce the standard class ticket that I bought "just in
> case" and move to standard.  Or would I face further difficulties?

That - I have to admit - would be taking a big risk, because you'd then be
leaving yourself open to the argument that you'd been occupying a First
Class seat for part of the journey without paying for a valid ticket at the
proper rate.  If you wanted to contest anything, it could only be over the
issue of whether or not the ticket collector was correct (legally, morally -
or whatever ;-) in their interpretation that your original First Class
ticket was invalid.

AJ

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:07:54 GMT, Chris  Tolley 
wrote:

>If that is what they do, then yes, I guess I do, but I wasn't having a
>dig at airlines. 
>
>Though they certainly deserve it if that is how they behave. Not being a
>very frequent flier, how is that situation described in the T&C?

It doesn't quite work as described.  What most full-service[1]
airlines do, though, is overbook, and if there aren't enough
volunteers to be offloaded it will often be the cheapest tickets that
are offloaded first.  As the most expensive tickets are generally the
ones sold last, it is more or less what you suggest.

[1] EasyJet and Ryanair don't overbook except in very extreme
circumstances (cancellations etc), and when they do it's the person
who was put on when it was full who would be offloaded - effectively
on standby.  The reason they can do this is that they don't
generally[2] offer flexible ticketing.

[2] EasyJet do allow you to take an earlier return flight, but this is
a matter of convenience for them in getting people out of the way of
later trouble in a spare seat.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:21:05 -0700 (PDT), david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:


>my advance-purchase ticket is only valid for the journey
>as originally booked. It has no refund value and cannot be changed. So
>what I am supposed to do is throw it away and buy completely new
>tickets for my journey.

According to National Rail:
"Advance fares are valid only on the date and train shown on the
ticket and are non-refundable. However, You can change the time or
date of travel before departure of the first reserved train. Any
difference in fare is payable, plus a £10 administration fee per
person, per Single fare for each change to the journey"

So you should be able to change your ticket for £10.  Of course, if
you're only making a short journey it may cost less than the admin fee
to abandon your original ticket and buy a replacement single fare.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic of not being allowed to 'start
long' or 'end short' - I have been known to buy saver tickets from
Lancaster to London because they are valid on more trains than SVRs
from Preston or Wigan.  But the new conditions are much clearer about
disallowing the practice. 

You have entered into a contract to make a particular journey that the
contract says must be from A to C.  If you happen to travel only from
A to B or B to C you have abandoned your original contract and
logically must enter into a new one, even though that means you paying
twice for that part of the journey.  Only the TOC can modify the
contract conditions and we know that they won't, though a kindly
gripper may turn a blind eye.  Their argument has been stated already,
that alternative tickets exist that do allow flexible journey patterns
and you chose not to buy one originally, and the opportunity is there
to modify your original ticket (for a fee).

"G"  wrote
>
> I'm not sure I agree with the logic of not being allowed to 'start
> long' or 'end short' - I have been known to buy saver tickets from
> Lancaster to London because they are valid on more trains than SVRs
> from Preston or Wigan.  But the new conditions are much clearer about
> disallowing the practice.
>
The new conditions apply to Advance tickets. AFAIK the new conditions for
Savers (Off-peak tickets) which will apply from September haven't been
published yet. I would hope that the new conditions for Off-peak tickets, at
least Off-peak Returns, will allow starting long or ending short on both
outward and return - there are often good reasons why the return journey is
not made between exactly the same stations as the outward, for example the
actual available train service, or the availability of local transport to
and from teh stations.

Peter

A Jones wrote:

> "Chris Tolley" <c> wrote in message
> news:1d5cuqk37pjwm$.foymy4b8ve8f.dlg@40tude.net...
> 
>> No, you have in effect paid for permission to travel. You are not under
>> any obligation to do so ...
> 
>> In a case where someone wants to get from A to B then B to C (all on the
>> same route) and there are cheap tickets for specific journeys from A to
>> C, but no cheap tickets from A to B or B to C, then it could easily
>> happen that the cheap ticket A to C is actually cheaper than the
>> available fare for either of the parts.
>>
>> Someone who purchases a cheap AC and a normal BC ticket might convince
>> themselves that they are paying twice for part of the service and
>> therefore losing out.
>>
>> But it's also true that they are paying the railway less than the
>> railway expects for that particular split itinerary, so the railway is
>> losing revenue.
> 
> But if  I'm making alternative arrangements for getting from A-B (and paying
> extra for them), then the railway company is gaining revenue on top of what
> it would otherwise have received for the A-C journey.  So I am the one who
> is  losing out.  

No, in the situation I described, you are saving yourself money. Perhaps
an example would make it clear.

Suppose the fares are like this:

A-B ordinary single 15.00
B-C ordinary single 15.00
A-C special advance restricted single 10.00

So, you want to split your journey, you should really pay 30.00. By
buying the cheapo ticket and only one ordinary ticket, you save 5.00
overall. In reality, the differential is typically much greater.

> And you've already previously written that whilst I've paid
> for permission to travel from station A, I am actually under no obligation
> to do so (i.e. the seat could be left empty).  It's not as though I was
> attempting to travel from A-B without paying.

No, but you *are* attempting to travel from B to C without having paid
the relevant fare for that journey.
 
>> On top of that, they are potentially denying a third
>> party (because these cheap tickets are limited) who actually does want
>> to travel from A to C at a time when the restrictions on the cheap
>> ticket are no problem the opportunity of doing that, and putting them
>> out of pocket.
> 
> No - that last bit is certainly not correct.  I thought we'd already agreed
> that the company wouldn't have been able to sell the Advance Ticket (which
> I'd already purchased at the advertised price) to anybody else.

But that's precisely the point. They can't sell a ticket twice, so if
someone buys it not intending to use it, then someone else who *is*
intending to make that journey can't buy it. Instead, they have to pay
for a higher price ticket.

So, overall, as shown above with figures, the person who does that:
a) saves himself money
b) denies revenue to the railway and
c) potentially causes greater expense to a third party.

It gets even more complicated in situations where the only way that B is
on a permitted route from A to C is because there is a through train
that goes that way. Such tickets are not valid at all on that route if a
change of trains is involved.


-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486543.html
("Repulse" nameplate on 50 030 at Rowsley, 22 Apr 2005)

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:07:54 GMT, Chris  Tolley 
> wrote:
> 
>>If that is what they do, then yes, I guess I do, but I wasn't having a
>>dig at airlines. 
>>
>>Though they certainly deserve it if that is how they behave. Not being a
>>very frequent flier, how is that situation described in the T&C?
> 
> It doesn't quite work as described.  What most full-service[1]
> airlines do, though, is overbook, and if there aren't enough
> volunteers to be offloaded it will often be the cheapest tickets that
> are offloaded first.  As the most expensive tickets are generally the
> ones sold last, it is more or less what you suggest.
> 
> [1] EasyJet and Ryanair don't overbook except in very extreme
> circumstances (cancellations etc), and when they do it's the person
> who was put on when it was full who would be offloaded - effectively
> on standby.  The reason they can do this is that they don't
> generally[2] offer flexible ticketing.
> 
> [2] EasyJet do allow you to take an earlier return flight, but this is
> a matter of convenience for them in getting people out of the way of
> later trouble in a spare seat.

Okay, but what I was really asking is if the small print on the ticket
warns that the ticket may not be honoured by the airline in the
circumstances you describe.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589956.html
(43 198 at Harpenden, 2 Sep 2004)

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:42:58 GMT, Chris  Tolley 
wrote:

>Okay, but what I was really asking is if the small print on the ticket
>warns that the ticket may not be honoured by the airline in the
>circumstances you describe.

I believe it does, yes.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:42:58 GMT, Chris  Tolley 
> wrote:
> 
>>Okay, but what I was really asking is if the small print on the ticket
>>warns that the ticket may not be honoured by the airline in the
>>circumstances you describe.
> 
> I believe it does, yes.

Thanks for the warning.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632814.html
(31 407 at London Kings Cross, 29 Nov 1980)

In message , at 21:08:47 on 
Tue, 1 Jul 2008, G  remarked:
>According to National Rail:
>"Advance fares are valid only on the date and train shown on the
>ticket and are non-refundable. However, You can change the time or
>date of travel before departure of the first reserved train. Any
>difference in fare is payable, plus a £10 administration fee per
>person, per Single fare for each change to the journey"
>
>So you should be able to change your ticket for £10.

You forgot the "difference in fare". If the new train has sold out of 
tickets at the price you originally paid, then that'll be an additional 
amount.
-- 
Roland Perry

> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
> for both.
>

What a stupid analogy, in that case you would have drunk your pint of beer 
and still have a pint of milk for later use.

As far as the OP is concerned he would be paying twice for one journey.

I find it incredible that someone is penalised for not being present for the 
whole journey, how could the railway possibly justify this, if anything they 
are saving money by not having to drag him to Bristol.

james

"john doe"  wrote in message 
news:hexak.202786$1B6.94762@newsfe21.ams2...

> I find it incredible that someone is penalised for not being present for 
> the whole journey, how could the railway possibly justify this?

The answer is "for all sorts of legitimate commercial reasons". Most of 
these have been explained here numerous times over the years. But the most 
obvious one (see the Paddington/Reading thread on this point) is that the 
railway may wish to be competitive on route A-C (passing through B) where it 
has no similar need to stimulate business from A to B. And where B is 
Reading General, that is certainly true.

At least the new conditions leave no room for doubt. Strict enforcement of 
them for Advance tickets is the best defence against the risk of imposition 
of similar (and less justifiable) conditions for Savers and Open tickets.

Regards

Jonathan

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:21:05, david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>And the practical question: how likely is it that the ticket collector
>will notice that I had not been on the train for the first hour of my
>journey? Bear in mind that there are not that many passengers in first
>class. And is s/he really likely to mind that much? (The train company
>is Cross Country.)

If you're joining the train at Bristol Temple Meads, there's a good
chance you won't be noticed, as XC usually change train crew there.
Just try to make yourself inconspicuous to the relief crew whilst they
(and you) wait on the platform for the incoming service.

Paul Harley

On 01 Jul 2008 16:25:45, Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Boarded a FGW HST yesterday.  TM was 'Mr Grumpy', who at every station
>proceeded to reel out reams of dire-sounding threats including a long list
>of tickets where you had to take the specified train (I thought there was
>only one type now, called 'Advance'?), exhortations to leave tables free for
>families, and stated that holders of Advance, First LEI, etc, etc had to sit
>in their specified seat.

He had a cheek to ask that tables be left free for families!  If FGW
had not reduced the number of tables in their refurbished HSTs, there
would be enough for most passengers.

Paul Harley

"Mortimer"  wrote:
>
>No, I don't accept that it is fraud.


Then you are as wrong as can be.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:46:40 +0100 someone who may be Paul Harley
 wrote this:-

>He had a cheek to ask that tables be left free for families!  If FGW
>had not reduced the number of tables in their refurbished HSTs, there
>would be enough for most passengers.

I thought that too. It is an example of the, "the passenger is
always wrong", approach.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen  wrote:
> I thought that too. It is an example of the, "the passenger is
> always wrong", approach.

He wasn't exactly the most customer-friendly member of staff - growled at
passengers and was trying to find everyone guilty of ticketing
technicalities.  I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.

Compare with another FGW HST I caught where non-availability of SVRs, CDRs
and Network Away Breaks (do they still exist?) to Reading and Didcot was
announced before leaving Paddington.  At least then you could get off the
train sharpish if there was a problem.

Theo

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:48:50 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:

>In message <1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net>
>          Chris  Tolley  wrote:
>

>> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
>> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
>> for both.
>
>But you can drink the milk later, you can't use the train ticket later.

Or you can give the milk to somebody else to drink, or even sell it to
somebody else.  You can't do that with the train ticket.
-- 
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com
md@rossrail.com

john doe wrote:

>> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
>> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
>> for both.
>>
> 
> What a stupid analogy, in that case you would have drunk your pint of beer 
> and still have a pint of milk for later use.

I chose milk because milk goes off. Perhaps the problem is with your
understanding of the analogy. Or of milk.



-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589971.html
(66 576 at Manchester Piccadilly, 22 Jul 2004)

Bill Hayles wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:48:50 +0100, Graeme Wall
>  wrote:
> 
>>In message <1sj8xb71w8ccn.htnppd7out32$.dlg@40tude.net>
>>          Chris  Tolley  wrote:
>>
> 
>>> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
>>> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
>>> for both.
>>
>>But you can drink the milk later, you can't use the train ticket later.
> 
> Or you can give the milk to somebody else to drink, or even sell it to
> somebody else.  You can't do that with the train ticket.

You're right.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598543.html
(66 517 in the middle of a sea of wagons at Basford Hall, 4 Mar 2005)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> I chose milk because milk goes off. Perhaps the problem is with your
> understanding of the analogy. Or of milk.

I could be awkward and point out that (despite what some people think)
you can freeze milk, and if you do it lasts quite a bit longer...

:)

Neil

Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.


Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?

There is nothing "honest" about it.  If people have accepted strict
conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
comply with those conditions.  

Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".

In message <1ouzhatrmjr0y$.15czaeg0hjfpo.dlg@40tude.net>
          Chris  Tolley  wrote:

> john doe wrote:
> 
> >> Why? If you buy a pint of milk, but then later change your plans and
> >> drink beer instead, you are not entitled to a refund - you end up paying
> >> for both.
> >>
> > 
> > What a stupid analogy, in that case you would have drunk your pint of
> > beer  and still have a pint of milk for later use.
> 
> I chose milk because milk goes off. 

Not if you put it into the fridge, then you can have it for breakfast.

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

On 2008-07-01, Chris Tolley wrote:

>> Being required to pay twice over - once for the journey that you can't
>> make and then all over again for the new journey - looks like an
>> attempt by the railway to sell the same seat twice over - and that
>> should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive terms that you
>> are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted fare.
>
> Your argument would be fine if that were the only ticket the railway
> offered, but the railway also offers tickets which do enable people to
> change their travel plans. They just cost more. People can freely choose
> to buy a restricted or an unrestricted ticket, to suit their needs.

Your argument would be fine if the conditions were symmetrical.

If for some reason the train doesn't go all the way, will the TOC pay
the OP more than his original ticket price as a penalty for stopping
short?  No.  If the train is 20 minutes late, will the compensation
equal what he has to pay (a new ticket at a higher price) if he
arrives at the train station 20 minutes late?  No.

In message , at 13:09:51 on 
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Tony Polson  remarked:
>>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.
>
>Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?
>
>There is nothing "honest" about it.  If people have accepted strict
>conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
>significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
>comply with those conditions.
>
>Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".

There are a few scenarios that might constitute an "honest mistake". For 
example, turning up at the station when there were delays, and getting 
on a train that departed to the correct destination at the same time as 
you were originally expecting to. Only to find it was the train for 
30|60 minutes before, running late.

It was also pretty clear from the announcements made, and the 
conversations I overheard on board, that when MML first introduced AP 
tickets about three years ago, that many of the travellers simply didn't 
understand the concept of "booked train only". Especially at Leicester 
where there are typically a pair of trains heading for London a few 
minutes apart.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:16:13 on Wed, 2 
Jul 2008, Adam Funk  remarked:
>If the train is 20 minutes late, will the compensation
>equal what he has to pay (a new ticket at a higher price) if he
>arrives at the train station 20 minutes late?  No.

This was my reasoning, when I made a claim recently for a train that was 
31 minutes late. Some might think that 1 minute (beyond the 30 minute 
threshold) is a pedantic thing to base a claim upon. But if I'd missed a 
train by 1 minute (and was travelling on an AP ticket, or it was at the 
start of a peak-travel blackout period) they would have told me I needed 
to buy a new ticket.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:51 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.
>
>Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?
>
Because people do make mistakes.  They could get on the wrong train
or be badly advised by signs or staff (or even by a fellow
traveller).  It does happen.

>There is nothing "honest" about it.  If people have accepted strict
>conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
>significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
>comply with those conditions.  
>
Yes, but an "honest mistake" can happen.  Deliberately breaching the
conditions for your ticket is quite different and is dishonest.

>Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".

It very well could be.  A deliberate act is not the same as an
"honest mistake".

Telling you that you may be on the wrong train after it has departed
is of no help whatsoever.

Simon

Neil  Williams  wrote:

>Chris Tolley wrote:
>
>> I chose milk because milk goes off. Perhaps the problem is with your
>> understanding of the analogy. Or of milk.
>
>I could be awkward and point out that (despite what some people think)
>you can freeze milk, and if you do it lasts quite a bit longer...
>
>:)


It is rather more difficult to drink, though.  

Fancy a slice of milk?  ;-)

Simon  wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:51 +0100, Tony Polson
> wrote:
>
>>Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>>>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>>>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>>>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.
>>
>>Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?
>>
>Because people do make mistakes.  They could get on the wrong train
>or be badly advised by signs or staff (or even by a fellow
>traveller).  It does happen.
>
>>There is nothing "honest" about it.  If people have accepted strict
>>conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
>>significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
>>comply with those conditions.  
>>
>Yes, but an "honest mistake" can happen.  Deliberately breaching the
>conditions for your ticket is quite different and is dishonest.
>
>>Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".
>
>It very well could be.  A deliberate act is not the same as an
>"honest mistake".
>
>Telling you that you may be on the wrong train after it has departed
>is of no help whatsoever.


Buying a cut price ticket means that the ticket holder must take great
care to use only the train, or trains, that the ticket is valid for.
These restrictions are clearly explained when the ticket is purchased,
and the purchase is made subject to terms and conditions that include
complying with those restrictions.

You seem to think that people can simply act daft and then claim they
have made "an honest mistake".  Well, I don't buy it, and if the
conductor on the train applies the rules, he shouldn't either.  

Perhaps these wilfully scatty people actually *need* the pain of
paying a full fare to get them to take seriously the restrictive terms
that come with cheap tickets.  Otherwise they (and others) will
continue trying it on, and on, and on ...

Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2008-07-01, Chris Tolley wrote:
> 
>>> Being required to pay twice over - once for the journey that you can't
>>> make and then all over again for the new journey - looks like an
>>> attempt by the railway to sell the same seat twice over - and that
>>> should be made an offence, superseding any restrictive terms that you
>>> are obliged to sign up to in order to get the discounted fare.
>>
>> Your argument would be fine if that were the only ticket the railway
>> offered, but the railway also offers tickets which do enable people to
>> change their travel plans. They just cost more. People can freely choose
>> to buy a restricted or an unrestricted ticket, to suit their needs.
> 
> Your argument would be fine if the conditions were symmetrical.
> 
> If for some reason the train doesn't go all the way, will the TOC pay
> the OP more than his original ticket price as a penalty for stopping
> short?  No. 

No, but when it has happened to me, the TOC has stumped up for a taxi.

> If the train is 20 minutes late, will the compensation
> equal what he has to pay (a new ticket at a higher price) if he
> arrives at the train station 20 minutes late?  No.

Not always so clear. If the point of making one journey is to connect
into another, then the fact that the railway caused the delay will be
taken into account for later legs, IME.

But if a passenger really *is* worried about missing a train and having
to pay a higher fare, presumably he could either take out insurance
against it, or ask Ladbrokes what odds they will give him, or even
<whisper it> buy a more flexible ticket in the first place.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104748.html
(47 002 at Llandudno Junction, 5 Jun 1985)

Roland Perry wrote:

> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
> train only". Especially at Leicester

How sad, considering that's where the concept started.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632811.html
(31 403 at Oxford, 2 Jun 1985)

In message , at 14:49:05 on 
Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
>> train only". Especially at Leicester
>
>How sad, considering that's where the concept started.

Do tell.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message
news:cOSW2jUrt6aIFA5E@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 14:49:05 on
> Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
> >> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
> >> train only". Especially at Leicester
> >
> >How sad, considering that's where the concept started.
>
> Do tell.
Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.

Peter

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:FLydnUxLe_2LL_bVnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message
> news:cOSW2jUrt6aIFA5E@perry.co.uk...
>> In message , at 14:49:05 on
>> Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>> >> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
>> >> train only". Especially at Leicester
>> >
>> >How sad, considering that's where the concept started.
>>
>> Do tell.
> Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.
>

I guess in those days they had to travel on the Cooked train only.

/getting coat now...

Paul

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:29:21 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>Simon  wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:51 +0100, Tony Polson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I didn't catch any of the conversations, so maybe this was
>>>>justified but he did announce that AP tickets must be used on the specified
>>>>train and a full single fare would be charged... announced after we'd got
>>>>underway at each station so people making an honest mistake had no option.
>>>
>>>Why is it "an honest mistake" to travel without a valid ticket?
>>>
>>Because people do make mistakes.  They could get on the wrong train
>>or be badly advised by signs or staff (or even by a fellow
>>traveller).  It does happen.
>>
>>>There is nothing "honest" about it.  If people have accepted strict
>>>conditions on the validity of a ticket in order to obtain a
>>>significant discount on the cost of travel, they are surely obliged to
>>>comply with those conditions.  
>>>
>>Yes, but an "honest mistake" can happen.  Deliberately breaching the
>>conditions for your ticket is quite different and is dishonest.
>>
>>>Not to do so is not "an honest mistake".
>>
>>It very well could be.  A deliberate act is not the same as an
>>"honest mistake".
>>
>>Telling you that you may be on the wrong train after it has departed
>>is of no help whatsoever.
>
>
>Buying a cut price ticket means that the ticket holder must take great
>care to use only the train, or trains, that the ticket is valid for.
>These restrictions are clearly explained when the ticket is purchased,
>and the purchase is made subject to terms and conditions that include
>complying with those restrictions.
>
>You seem to think that people can simply act daft and then claim they
>have made "an honest mistake".  Well, I don't buy it, and if the
>conductor on the train applies the rules, he shouldn't either.  
>
No I do not seem to think any such thing and never said anything
about acting daft being OK to travel without paying the correct
fare.  It is not.  I was just noting that honest mistakes do happen
as does fare dodging.  I see lots of fare dodging but very few
honest mistakes.

>Perhaps these wilfully scatty people actually *need* the pain of
>paying a full fare to get them to take seriously the restrictive terms
>that come with cheap tickets.  Otherwise they (and others) will
>continue trying it on, and on, and on ...

Maybe they are not wilfully scatty people.  Maybe they have
dementia?  Are they just acting daft?  Maybe the station staff they
asked advice from got it wrong.  Do you want your scatty granny in
front of the beak for making an honest mistake?

Simon

Tony Polson  wrote:
> Buying a cut price ticket means that the ticket holder must take great
> care to use only the train, or trains, that the ticket is valid for.
> These restrictions are clearly explained when the ticket is purchased,
> and the purchase is made subject to terms and conditions that include
> complying with those restrictions.

For AP tickets they are.  For off-peak tickets they aren't.  I was sitting
on the 1645 at Paddington, a few mins before departure. The TM announced
that 'Savers, CDRs and Network Awaybreaks are not valid on this train'.  I
was holding a Saver.  The 1645 has previously been the last Saver-available
train before the evening blackout.  I was about to grab my stuff and head
for the door, thinking they'd changed the rules in some way I hadn't noticed
(after all, it's only by reading this group that I hear of most of the
changes) when after a pause the TM added 'to Reading and Didcot'.  Breathe
out.

On the way back I phoned NRES to find out the restrictions on my ticket.
Past experience taught me not to ask NRES the question 'can I use ticket X
on train Y' because the answers are frequently wrong.  So I asked for the
restriction code and time restrictions for my ticket.  Asking for the code
meant they had to look it up in the Fares Manual and quote me the
restrictions verbatim, which I could then apply myself.

This is all stuff that a 'normal' wouldn't know how to do.  Nor should it be
necessary.

Theo

Peter Masson wrote:

> The new conditions apply to Advance tickets. AFAIK the new conditions for
> Savers (Off-peak tickets) which will apply from September haven't been
> published yet. I would hope that the new conditions for Off-peak tickets, at
> least Off-peak Returns, will allow starting long or ending short on both
> outward and return - there are often good reasons why the return journey is
> not made between exactly the same stations as the outward, for example the
> actual available train service, or the availability of local transport to
> and from the stations.

Could the industry do with working on the fact that a ticketing 
transaction is hopefully not a one off?

While it's relatively easy in the world of transport to gouge an 
individual for a distress purchase on a one-off transaction, its better 
to take rather more money from them in repeat transactions and use the 
income to create a wider customer base and a better product, especially 
as we live in interesting times.

Mark

In article , 
pwharley@geekmail.com says...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:21:05, david_r98@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >And the practical question: how likely is it that the ticket collector
> >will notice that I had not been on the train for the first hour of my
> >journey? Bear in mind that there are not that many passengers in first
> >class. And is s/he really likely to mind that much? (The train company
> >is Cross Country.)
> 
> If you're joining the train at Bristol Temple Meads, there's a good
> chance you won't be noticed, as XC usually change train crew there.
> Just try to make yourself inconspicuous to the relief crew whilst they
> (and you) wait on the platform for the incoming service.

The other approach is to go and talk the guard to explain your situation 
before you board.

Previously I've travelled on a later XC service as my mate had picked up 
the wrong ticket before leaving home. We spoke to the guard at Reading, 
and he had no problem with us travelling an hour late. 

It will really depend on the guard on the day. Personnally I suspect 
that most XC guards won't mind, especially as I've never had the 
reservation coupon checked when travelling on XC with advance tickets. 
Unlike other TOCs, Virgin and now XC seem far more pragmatic and 
flexible when dealing with ticket issues to retain happy customers who 
will then travel again. 

Duncan

On 02 Jul 2008 18:59:26 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>This is all stuff that a 'normal' wouldn't know how to do.  Nor should it be
>necessary.

The trouble is that there is only one way to make it *really* obvious,
and that is compulsory reservation.  I don't think most of us would
want that.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 2008-07-02, Roland Perry wrote:

> There are a few scenarios that might constitute an "honest mistake". For 
> example, turning up at the station when there were delays, and getting 
> on a train that departed to the correct destination at the same time as 
> you were originally expecting to. Only to find it was the train for 
> 30|60 minutes before, running late.
>
> It was also pretty clear from the announcements made, and the 
> conversations I overheard on board, that when MML first introduced AP 
> tickets about three years ago, that many of the travellers simply didn't 
> understand the concept of "booked train only". Especially at Leicester 
> where there are typically a pair of trains heading for London a few 
> minutes apart.

Good points, and the man on the street may not see why it should make
any difference which train he takes in those situations.  But as you
say, the passenger is always wrong.

On 2008-07-02, Chris Tolley wrote:

>> Your argument would be fine if the conditions were symmetrical.
>> 
>> If for some reason the train doesn't go all the way, will the TOC pay
>> the OP more than his original ticket price as a penalty for stopping
>> short?  No. 
>
> No, but when it has happened to me, the TOC has stumped up for a taxi.

Lucky you.  When they give you the price of a standard open return for
the whole journey, that will be symmetrical.

>> If the train is 20 minutes late, will the compensation
>> equal what he has to pay (a new ticket at a higher price) if he
>> arrives at the train station 20 minutes late?  No.
>
> Not always so clear. If the point of making one journey is to connect
> into another, then the fact that the railway caused the delay will be
> taken into account for later legs, IME.
>
> But if a passenger really *is* worried about missing a train and having
> to pay a higher fare, presumably he could either take out insurance
> against it, or ask Ladbrokes what odds they will give him, or even
><whisper it> buy a more flexible ticket in the first place.

Why should he?  If the TOCs want all their conditions to have moral as
well as legal force, the public is entitled to a fair set of them.

On 2008-07-02, Paul Scott wrote:

>> Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.
>
> I guess in those days they had to travel on the Cooked train only.

To Crewe?

> /getting coat now...

Mine too, please.

Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2008-07-02, Chris Tolley wrote:
> 
>>> Your argument would be fine if the conditions were symmetrical.
>>> 
>>> If for some reason the train doesn't go all the way, will the TOC pay
>>> the OP more than his original ticket price as a penalty for stopping
>>> short?  No. 
>>
>> No, but when it has happened to me, the TOC has stumped up for a taxi.
> 
> Lucky you.  When they give you the price of a standard open return for
> the whole journey, that will be symmetrical.

Well, on the occasions it has happened, I have, I assure you been rather
more concerned about getting home than about receiving financial
compensation. Generally the taxis work to my advantage, since the
drivers have usually been amenable to taking me to the final
destination, rather than the station the train was going to. Overall,
the inconvenience of not finishing my train ride as expected has been
matched by the convenience and money-saving of not having had to make my
own arrangements afterwards. That's plenty symmetrical enough for me.
YMMV

 
>> But if a passenger really *is* worried about missing a train and having
>> to pay a higher fare, presumably he could either take out insurance
>> against it, or ask Ladbrokes what odds they will give him, or even
>><whisper it> buy a more flexible ticket in the first place.
> 
> Why should he?  If the TOCs want all their conditions to have moral as
> well as legal force, the public is entitled to a fair set of them.

What is unfair about offering a substantial discount to someone if they
accept restricted conditions? It's a free choice. The last time I sent
SWMBO southwards by train, there was an option either to get a
restricted Advance ticket or a saver (I didn't need to consider the open
fare). We selected the saver because there was a small chance she might
need to travel by a different train from the original plan. That's how
it worked out. She had an appropriate ticket and no hassle. I am truly
at a loss to understand why you think such an arrangement is not fair
and transparent.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906823.html
(47 803 at Rowsley, 17 Jun 2004)

Peter Masson wrote:

> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message
> news:cOSW2jUrt6aIFA5E@perry.co.uk...
>> In message , at 14:49:05 on
>> Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>>> many of the travellers simply didn't understand the concept of "booked
>>>> train only". Especially at Leicester
>>>
>>>How sad, considering that's where the concept started.
>>
>> Do tell.

> Thomas Cook's first excursion, 5 July 1841, ran from Leicester.

Yep. That's what I was referring to.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104747.html
(31 444 at Manchester Piccadilly, 8 Jun 1985)

Neil Williams  wrote:
> The trouble is that there is only one way to make it *really* obvious,
> and that is compulsory reservation.  I don't think most of us would
> want that.

Depends on your definition of 'really', but this would help a lot:

When you book online, you're told the restriction code of your ticket and
given a print of the relevant page of the Fares Manual giving the
restrictions.

A website where you can enter your ticket details and be told the
restrictions.  Optionally it might list permitted routes, or have a journey
planner that only gives trains valid on that ticket.

Theo

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:29:21 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:


>Buying a cut price ticket means that the ticket holder must take great
>care to use only the train, or trains, that the ticket is valid for.
>These restrictions are clearly explained when the ticket is purchased,
>and the purchase is made subject to terms and conditions that include
>complying with those restrictions.
>
>You seem to think that people can simply act daft and then claim they
>have made "an honest mistake".  Well, I don't buy it, and if the
>conductor on the train applies the rules, he shouldn't either.  
>
>Perhaps these wilfully scatty people actually *need* the pain of
>paying a full fare to get them to take seriously the restrictive terms
>that come with cheap tickets.  Otherwise they (and others) will
>continue trying it on, and on, and on ...

Theoretically you are absolutely right. But the fare structure now  is
so complicated that perhaps people with little experience of rail
travel and with no intention of defrauding a company or committing an
offence can get caught out.

And if they have a bad experience I suggest they may be put off
travelling by train again. Despite the cost of petrol.

Guy

In message <ARd*OfWgs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:48:02 on Wed, 
2 Jul 2008, Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>A website where you can enter your ticket details and be told the
>restrictions.  Optionally it might list permitted routes, or have a journey
>planner that only gives trains valid on that ticket.

A map please. On walk-up tickets not everyone is