Been having a look at options for a trip to London from West
Yorkshire.

Qjump tells me that a Business Saver Return is £124 from Huddersfield
to London and is valid either on Virgin into Euston or NatEx into
Kings Cross, with evening peak departures allowed from both.

If I was just travelling from Manchester to London, if I wanted to
come out of the smoke after half three Qjump tells me that I would
need a SOR at £230.

Is this right? I can buy a ticket to travel further than Manchester
for half the price of just going to Manchester?

Ian

In message 
, at 
04:10:06 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers  
remarked:
>Qjump tells me that a Business Saver Return is £124 from Huddersfield
>to London and is valid either on Virgin into Euston or NatEx into
>Kings Cross,

EMT into St Pancras as well, I would have thought.

>with evening peak departures allowed from both.
>
>If I was just travelling from Manchester to London, if I wanted to
>come out of the smoke after half three Qjump tells me that I would
>need a SOR at £230.
>
>Is this right? I can buy a ticket to travel further than Manchester
>for half the price of just going to Manchester?

The Business Saver is not available for the early morning peak, whereas 
the SOR is. It's therefore priced about halfway between a Saver and SOR.

What I can't quite work out is why the SOR via Manchester is priced as 
"any permitted" £210, when Avantix has it at a much more expected "Route 
Manchester" £234 (price prior to recent increase, of course).

-- 
Roland Perry

Rochdale Pioneers wrote:
> Been having a look at options for a trip to London from West
> Yorkshire.
> 
> Qjump tells me that a Business Saver Return is £124 from Huddersfield
> to London and is valid either on Virgin into Euston or NatEx into
> Kings Cross, with evening peak departures allowed from both.
> 
> If I was just travelling from Manchester to London, if I wanted to
> come out of the smoke after half three Qjump tells me that I would
> need a SOR at £230.
> 
> Is this right? I can buy a ticket to travel further than Manchester
> for half the price of just going to Manchester?

Welcome to the wonderful world of privatised railway ticketing!

BTW if the Business Saver conditions from Huddersfield are similar to 
those from Leeds, Shipley etc to Kings Cross, then there is a 
restriction in the morning peak travelling to London, which is slightly 
less restrictive than the Saver.  The SOR gives complete freedom in both 
directions.
-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

On Jul 14, 12:49 pm, Jeremy Double  wrote:
> Rochdale Pioneers wrote:
> > Been having a look at options for a trip to London from West
> > Yorkshire.
>
> > Qjump tells me that a Business Saver Return is £124 from Huddersfield
> > to London and is valid either on Virgin into Euston or NatEx into
> > Kings Cross, with evening peak departures allowed from both.
>
> > If I was just travelling from Manchester to London, if I wanted to
> > come out of the smoke after half three Qjump tells me that I would
> > need a SOR at £230.
>
> > Is this right? I can buy a ticket to travel further than Manchester
> > for half the price of just going to Manchester?
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of privatised railway ticketing!
>
> BTW if the Business Saver conditions from Huddersfield are similar to
> those from Leeds, Shipley etc to Kings Cross, then there is a
> restriction in the morning peak travelling to London, which is slightly
> less restrictive than the Saver.  The SOR gives complete freedom in both
> directions.

Happily as I'd be travelling on from Thornaby (a long way round to
London but only £15 more expensive than direct and I want to try a
Pendolino) the first train of the day connects with the 08:45 off
Piccadilly which is valid in a Business SVR.

So what is to stop Manchester pax from starting short/finishing early
and buying a ticket from Huddersfield? order it online and collect
from the Piccadilly Fast Ticket machine - save £100.

In message 
, at 
06:47:07 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers  
remarked:
>So what is to stop Manchester pax from starting short/finishing early
>and buying a ticket from Huddersfield? order it online and collect
>from the Piccadilly Fast Ticket machine - save £100.

If the prices are correct (and see my earlier posting which hints that 
they didn't appear to be correct six months ago) then the current T&C 
would allow this.

But remember, even then you are still comparing a Business Saver with a 
SOR, and often if you don't compare exactly like with like then it 
devalues the credibility of the argument.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Jul 14, 3:42 pm, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 06:47:07 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers 
> remarked:
>
> >So what is to stop Manchester pax from starting short/finishing early
> >and buying a ticket from Huddersfield? order it online and collect
> >from the Piccadilly Fast Ticket machine - save £100.
>
> If the prices are correct (and see my earlier posting which hints that
> they didn't appear to be correct six months ago) then the current T&C
> would allow this.
>
> But remember, even then you are still comparing a Business Saver with a
> SOR, and often if you don't compare exactly like with like then it
> devalues the credibility of the argument.

I am not talking about a SOR at all. From what I can see on Qjump if I
want to travel on the 08:45 from Manchester to London and 15:35 Return
from Euston I am OK on a BusSVR from Huddersfield. There is not a
BusSVR fare from Manchester that allows me to travel on those trains -
you would need a SOR. So my comparison is entirely correct on those
trains. Which is all I was ever talking about. Yes, a SOR is fully
flexible - but as I didn't say I wanted to be fully flexible why are
you banging on about me devaluing "the credibility of the argument"?

What argument? Yours?

Ian

Rochdale Pioneers wrote:
> I am not talking about a SOR at all. From what I can see on Qjump if I
> want to travel on the 08:45 from Manchester to London and 15:35 Return
> from Euston I am OK on a BusSVR from Huddersfield. There is not a
> BusSVR fare from Manchester that allows me to travel on those trains -
> you would need a SOR. 

Business Saver was a GNER introduction, to allow people to travel up to 
London just after the main peak flow (but one hour before Savers became 
valid), and come back in the evening peak, with flexibility.  Before 
they were introduced, the return halves of Savers were valid to leave 
Kings Cross in the evening peak.  GNER removed the Saver validity from 
late-afternoon/early evening trains when the Business Saver was 
introduced.  Initially, the incremental cost of a Business Saver over a 
Saver was a handful of pounds (so if there was a chance you might come 
home in the evening peak it was worthwhile getting a Business Saver 
instead of a Saver).  Since then, the cost of the Business Saver has 
risen more steeply than the cost of a Saver, making the extra cost 
something worth thinking about.

As far as Manchester is concerned, Virgin adopted a different strategy, 
aggressively pushing advance purchase tickets, and encouraging such 
approaches as a an advance single in one direction and an open single 
back.  Thus there are no Business Savers from Manchester.

Huddersfield is interesting.  Presumably the Huddersfield to London flow 
is priced by the East Coast franchise (hence the availability of 
Business Savers).  However, given its position about halfway between 
Leeds/Wakefield and Manchester on the transverse routes, it's obvious 
that tickets would have to be valid both via Manchester and via 
Leeds/Wakefield.  Thus, Virgin end up carrying passengers using a type 
of ticket based on a different ticketing philosophy, with prices and 
conditions set by the East Coast franchise.

If the Huddersfield-London Business Saver meets your needs for travel 
from Manchester to London, then I can see no reason not to use it. 
However, do it soon, because I suspect the Business Saver will disappear 
(along with the Saver) in the forthcoming rationalisation of tickets 
into Open/Off Peak.

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

On Jul 14, 4:58 pm, Rochdale Pioneers  wrote:
> I am not talking about a SOR at all. From what I can see on Qjump if I
> want to travel on the 08:45 from Manchester to London and 15:35 Return
> from Euston I am OK on a BusSVR from Huddersfield. There is not a
> BusSVR fare from Manchester that allows me to travel on those trains -
> you would need a SOR.

No - the 0845 is valid for Savers, so you'd do best to get a SVS out
for GBP61 and an SOS back at GBP115.

> So my comparison is entirely correct on those
> trains. Which is all I was ever talking about. Yes, a SOR is fully
> flexible - but as I didn't say I wanted to be fully flexible why are
> you banging on about me devaluing "the credibility of the argument"?

NatEx's strategy for medium-peak pricing is to sell BusSVRs on the
flows it controls, such as Huddersfield.

Virgin's strategy is to sell advance singles on peak as well as off-
peak trains: a single on the 1535 tomorrow (if booked now) costs
GBP64.

So if you don't require flexibility, you can get an SVS out on the
0845 (weirdly, this is cheaper than any of the advance tickets
available) and an Advance ticket on the 1535 for a total of GBP125.
Which is remarkably close to the Huddersfield fare...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"Jeremy Double"  wrote in message 
news:aLmdnYFwy9hzGObVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> If the Huddersfield-London Business Saver meets your needs for travel from 
> Manchester to London, then I can see no reason not to use it. However, do 
> it soon, because I suspect the Business Saver will disappear (along with 
> the Saver) in the forthcoming rationalisation of tickets into Open/Off 
> Peak.

I think it is wrong to say the Saver will 'disappear' - it is perfectly 
clear from all the announcements/literature that it will be renamed 'Off 
Peak'.

You are probably correct about the business Saver disappearing though.

BTW 'Open' is the current terminology that becomes 'Anytime'.

Paul

In message 
, at 
10:00:33 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, John B  remarked:
>So if you don't require flexibility, you can get an SVS out on the
>0845 (weirdly, this is cheaper than any of the advance tickets
>available)

I have noticed that "late availability" Advance tickets often cost more 
than a Saver these days, on several routes.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
08:58:32 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers  
remarked:
>I am not talking about a SOR at all. From what I can see on Qjump if I
>want to travel on the 08:45 from Manchester to London and 15:35 Return
>from Euston I am OK on a BusSVR from Huddersfield.

I know exactly what you are talking about - I have looked it up :)

>There is not a BusSVR fare from Manchester that allows me to travel on 
>those trains - you would need a SOR.

Correct. But if someone from Manchester wants to travel on an early 
train then this "starting late with Huddersfield Business Saver" trick 
won't work for them. Best that they understand that, before you 
"oversell" the Huddersfield fare as a universal substitute.

>So my comparison is entirely correct on those trains. Which is all I 
>was ever talking about.

All I'm doing is raising a tiny query about the fares, which as you say 
appear to be 'wrong'. Quite recently, the fare you have described would 
appear not to be valid via Manchester, with a separate "via Manchester" 
fare slightly more expensive than the pure Manchester-London fare (which 
is what you'd expect).

There are several possible explanations:

1) The previous (2007) Avantix "via Manchester" fare was a bluff, and an 
"any permitted" has always been valid.

2) The "via Manchester" fare has been scrapped recently, and the "any 
permitted" is now the relevant (and only remaining) fare.

3) Qjump has got its fares confused, and is wrongly failing to quote a 
higher "via Manchester" fare.

4) Something else.

There is enough doubt in my mind to raise these questions. Sorry if that 
offends. However, no-one else has jumped in about this so far...
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:59:20 +0100, Jeremy Double
 wrote:

>As far as Manchester is concerned, Virgin adopted a different strategy, 
>aggressively pushing advance purchase tickets, and encouraging such 
>approaches as a an advance single in one direction and an open single 
>back.  Thus there are no Business Savers from Manchester.

VT did have them at one stage, not sure when they were withdrawn.
Indeed, I think VT had them first.  There was also "The Weekender"
which was priced slightly higher than a SVR but allowed outward travel
on Friday evenings in the peak, with return by Monday, off-peak only.

>If the Huddersfield-London Business Saver meets your needs for travel 
>from Manchester to London, then I can see no reason not to use it. 
>However, do it soon, because I suspect the Business Saver will disappear 
>(along with the Saver) in the forthcoming rationalisation of tickets 
>into Open/Off Peak.

Or the Saver will become the "Super Off-Peak" and the BVR the
"Off-Peak".  There is scope for that.

Neil

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

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:37:31 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>I have noticed that "late availability" Advance tickets often cost more 
>than a Saver these days, on several routes.

They do on all VT flows because they're only supposed to exist on
trains where SVRs are not valid.  If they're popping up elsewhere it
does seem more than a little silly (though only if they're more
expensive than a SVS, not half an SVR, of course).

Neil

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

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:46:14 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>1) The previous (2007) Avantix "via Manchester" fare was a bluff, and an 
>"any permitted" has always been valid.

There was at one point some debate as to whether a routed fare that
existed on a normally Permitted route would actually make that route
*non-Permitted* if the routed fare was higher.  I don't know what the
resolution of that was, if indeed there was one.

These comparisons normally only exist within ticket types, though; you
can't really compare a BVR to an SOR.

Neil

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

On 14 Jul, 19:46, Roland Perry  wrote:
> 2) The "via Manchester" fare has been scrapped recently, and the "any
> permitted" is now the relevant (and only remaining) fare.

If you use the "other fares by slower routes" link in thetrainline.com
(below the fares grid), you get Via Chesterfield for £189.50 and Any
Permitted for £230.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In message , at 20:25:20 on Mon, 
14 Jul 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>I have noticed that "late availability" Advance tickets often cost more
>>than a Saver these days, on several routes.
>
>They do on all VT flows because they're only supposed to exist on
>trains where SVRs are not valid.  If they're popping up elsewhere it
>does seem more than a little silly (though only if they're more
>expensive than a SVS, not half an SVR, of course).

The ones I've seen are more expensive than a SVR!

For example, Nottingham-London a SVR is £50.70 and an AP-single highest 
fare is £41 each way, total £82.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
13:32:02 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Mr Thant 
 remarked:
>> 2) The "via Manchester" fare has been scrapped recently, and the "any
>> permitted" is now the relevant (and only remaining) fare.
>
>If you use the "other fares by slower routes" link in thetrainline.com
>(below the fares grid), you get Via Chesterfield for £189.50 and Any
>Permitted for £230.

That's Manchester-London I presume? We are trying to dissect the 
Huddersfield-London fares.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 14 Jul, 21:47, Roland Perry  wrote:
> That's Manchester-London I presume? We are trying to dissect the
> Huddersfield-London fares.

Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:

SAVER RETURN		MANCHESTER		79.20 GBP
SAVER RETURN		ANY PERMITTED		79.90 GBP
BUSINESS SAVER		ANY PERMITTED		124.00 GBP
STANDARD OPEN RETURN		ANY PERMITTED		210.00 GBP
STANDARD OPEN RETURN		MANCHESTER		245.00 GBP
FIRST OPEN RETURN		ANY PERMITTED		312.00 GBP
FIRST DINE AND GO.		AP PETERBRO&NXEC		332.00 GBP
FIRST OPEN RETURN		MANCHESTER		375.00 GBP

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:40:59 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>For example, Nottingham-London a SVR is £50.70 and an AP-single highest 
>fare is £41 each way, total £82.

You are making a very big assumption that everyone is making a return
journey.  That fare would be a good choice for someone making a single
journey, as no doubt a SVS is 50.65 or around that.

Neil

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

In message , at 05:29:19 on Tue, 
15 Jul 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>For example, Nottingham-London a SVR is £50.70 and an AP-single highest
>>fare is £41 each way, total £82.
>
>You are making a very big assumption that everyone is making a return
>journey.  That fare would be a good choice for someone making a single
>journey, as no doubt a SVS is 50.65 or around that.

I know that not everyone wants to make a return journey on the same day, 
but a Saver has validity for a month and I suspect that most people go 
back home eventually. Given the degree of restriction on an AP ticket 
that little of a price differential is absurd.

For people on a budget doing a strict one-way trip the "via Grantham" 
SVS is £43.00
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
14:36:47 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Mr Thant 
 remarked:
>> That's Manchester-London I presume? We are trying to dissect the
>> Huddersfield-London fares.
>
>Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:
>
>SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
>SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
>BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
>STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
>STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
>FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
>FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
>FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP

So there isn't an explicit entry for Business Saver - Manchester, which 
seems an anomaly, but there we are.
-- 
Roland Perry

Jeremy Double wrote:

> Huddersfield is interesting.  Presumably the Huddersfield to London flow 
> is priced by the East Coast franchise (hence the availability of 
> Business Savers).  However, given its position about halfway between 
> Leeds/Wakefield and Manchester on the transverse routes, it's obvious 
> that tickets would have to be valid both via Manchester and via 
> Leeds/Wakefield.

Why is that obvious? If there is differential pricing on the alternative
routes, it's more intuitive to expect tickets (other than ANY PERMITTED)
to be restricted to particular routes. In the case of a ticket that was
designed by GNER, without a corresponding Virgin ticket, that becomes
even more the case.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598500.html
(08 933 at Eastleigh, 1985)

On Jul 15, 10:58 am, Chris  Tolley  wrote:
> Jeremy Double wrote:
> > Huddersfield is interesting.  Presumably the Huddersfield to London flow
> > is priced by the East Coast franchise (hence the availability of
> > Business Savers).  However, given its position about halfway between
> > Leeds/Wakefield and Manchester on the transverse routes, it's obvious
> > that tickets would have to be valid both via Manchester and via
> > Leeds/Wakefield.
>
> Why is that obvious? If there is differential pricing on the alternative
> routes, it's more intuitive to expect tickets (other than ANY PERMITTED)
> to be restricted to particular routes. In the case of a ticket that was
> designed by GNER, without a corresponding Virgin ticket, that becomes
> even more the case.
> --http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598500.html
> (08 933 at Eastleigh, 1985)

So unless I've got this wrong:

1.There is a GNER-set BusSVR fare from all stops along the TPE route
up to and including Stalybridge and Dewsbury which is valid on West
Coast, EMT and NatEx
2. Its cheaper to buy a ticket from Huddersfield than from Manchester
3. Because the origin is in West Yorkshire but isn't Leeds the NatEx
routing allows you to go London-York-Leeds-Huddersfield

So glad that ordinary punters aren't going to get at all confused....

Ian

On Jul 15, 7:12 am, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 14:36:47 on Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Mr Thant
>  remarked:
>
> >> That's Manchester-London I presume? We are trying to dissect the
> >> Huddersfield-London fares.
>
> >Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:
>
> >SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
> >SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
> >BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
> >FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP
>
> So there isn't an explicit entry for Business Saver - Manchester, which
> seems an anomaly, but there we are.
> --
> Roland Perry

Was about to post the same point. The SVR Fare Route Manchester is 70p
cheaper than Any Permitted. Playing with NatEx's excellent
reservations computer it will let me go via Manchester on both. I take
it then that "Any Permitted" includes Manchester - doesn't an excluded
route/TOC have to have "Not" or X only" on it?.

That being the case the BusSVR Fare which is also Any Permitted should
also be valid via Manchester (website thinks so) as should the Any
Permitted SOR fare (again website thinks so). So why if the Any
Permitted tickets are OK via Manchester (at £210 in the case of the
SOR) why have a £245 "Route Manchester" SOR as well?

Ian

In message 
, at 
07:10:39 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers  
remarked:
>> >Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:
>>
>> >SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
>> >SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
>> >BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
>> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
>> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
>> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
>> >FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
>> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP
>>
>> So there isn't an explicit entry for Business Saver - Manchester, which
>> seems an anomaly, but there we are.
>
>Was about to post the same point. The SVR Fare Route Manchester is 70p
>cheaper than Any Permitted.

There's a tradeoff here because the "route Manchester" is actually less 
flexible, because you can't go via Leeds. So you might expect it to be 
cheaper (as this Saver appears to be). On the other hand in a different 
fares regime (Savers and SOR are different planets) the Manchester route 
has "posher" trains and Virgin wants to charge more for using them than 
NXEC wants to charge for the ECML.

>Playing with NatEx's excellent
>reservations computer it will let me go via Manchester on both. I take
>it then that "Any Permitted" includes Manchester -

Not quite. I think the rule is that if there's a specific route quoted 
at a higher price, then that route is no longer "any permitted" for that 
class of fare.

The loophole here is the absence of the "via Manchester" Business Saver.

>doesn't an excluded route/TOC have to have "Not" or X only" on it?.

This is one of the classic Fares conundrums, known to long time 
uk.railway contributors as the "Not Stansted" effect.

Despite the existence of "Not Stansted" tickets from Cambridge to 
Liverpool St, such a ticket *is* valid via Stansted because the price 
for a "via Stansted" is *NO GREATER* [it's actually exactly the same, 
but in this bizarre world could even be less].

Another way to look on that if you understand excesses, is to say that 
the extra payment you'd have to give the guard to travel via Stansted on 
a "Not Stansted" ticket is zero.

Under this rule a "via Manchester" SOR is presumably valid via Leeds 
because it's more expensive than the "any permitted".

>That being the case the BusSVR Fare which is also Any Permitted should
>also be valid via Manchester (website thinks so)

Because there isn't a more expensive "via Manchester".

> as should the Any Permitted SOR fare (again website thinks so). So why 
>if the Any Permitted tickets are OK via Manchester (at £210 in the case 
>of the SOR) why have a £245 "Route Manchester" SOR as well?

Because the existence of the "via Manchester" SOR invalidates that route 
for an "any permitted" SOR. It poisons the "any-ness".
-- 
Roland Perry

On Jul 15, 3:55 pm, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 07:10:39 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers 
> remarked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:
>
> >> >SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
> >> >SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
> >> >BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
> >> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
> >> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP
>
> >> So there isn't an explicit entry for Business Saver - Manchester, which
> >> seems an anomaly, but there we are.
>
> >Was about to post the same point. The SVR Fare Route Manchester is 70p
> >cheaper than Any Permitted.
>
> There's a tradeoff here because the "route Manchester" is actually less
> flexible, because you can't go via Leeds. So you might expect it to be
> cheaper (as this Saver appears to be). On the other hand in a different
> fares regime (Savers and SOR are different planets) the Manchester route
> has "posher" trains and Virgin wants to charge more for using them than
> NXEC wants to charge for the ECML.
>
> >Playing with NatEx's excellent
> >reservations computer it will let me go via Manchester on both. I take
> >it then that "Any Permitted" includes Manchester -
>
> Not quite. I think the rule is that if there's a specific route quoted
> at a higher price, then that route is no longer "any permitted" for that
> class of fare.
>
> The loophole here is the absence of the "via Manchester" Business Saver.
>
> >doesn't an excluded route/TOC have to have "Not" or X only" on it?.
>
> This is one of the classic Fares conundrums, known to long time
> uk.railway contributors as the "Not Stansted" effect.
>
> Despite the existence of "Not Stansted" tickets from Cambridge to
> Liverpool St, such a ticket *is* valid via Stansted because the price
> for a "via Stansted" is *NO GREATER* [it's actually exactly the same,
> but in this bizarre world could even be less].
>
> Another way to look on that if you understand excesses, is to say that
> the extra payment you'd have to give the guard to travel via Stansted on
> a "Not Stansted" ticket is zero.
>
> Under this rule a "via Manchester" SOR is presumably valid via Leeds
> because it's more expensive than the "any permitted".
>
> >That being the case the BusSVR Fare which is also Any Permitted should
> >also be valid via Manchester (website thinks so)
>
> Because there isn't a more expensive "via Manchester".
>
> > as should the Any Permitted SOR fare (again website thinks so). So why
> >if the Any Permitted tickets are OK via Manchester (at £210 in the case
> >of the SOR) why have a £245 "Route Manchester" SOR as well?
>
> Because the existence of the "via Manchester" SOR invalidates that route
> for an "any permitted" SOR. It poisons the "any-ness".

*grin* Glad I asked! I take it that the mass restructuring of fares is
going to remove this nightmare and replace it with a new one? And your
last point - the existence of a Route Manchester SVR means that the
Any Permitted isn't valid via Manchester - I take it this effectively
is done to that Virgin/NatEx snaffle a bigger portion of their
relevant fares?

Still haven't entirely decided what to do tomorrow. Basically I'm
doing Thornaby - London which I do at least fortnightly and fancy
something different. Virgin declassifying Coach G on Pendo sets sounds
like fun so its just working out how safe it is to spend the company
cash on ticket split at Hudds without some git trying to excess me
millions...

Ian

In message 
, at 
08:19:13 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers  
remarked:
>I take it that the mass restructuring of fares is
>going to remove this nightmare and replace it with a new one?

All it will do is remove the (reasonably) familiar names like "Business 
Saver" and replace then with things like "Off peak" and "Super off 
Peak".

Except some of the "Off peak" will be ex-SVRs and ex-CDRs rather than 
ex-Business-Savers etc etc.

>And your last point - the existence of a Route Manchester SVR means 
>that the Any Permitted isn't valid via Manchester

No. The any permitted is *more expensive* than the "Route Manchester", 
so in this case is valid either way. The only difference between the 
tickets is saving 70p if you are happy to go *only* via Manchester.

> - I take it this effectively is done to that Virgin/NatEx snaffle a 
>bigger portion of their relevant fares?

I'm sure the secondary effect is that Virgin get most of the "Route 
Manchester" fare, whereas they'd only get half(?) of the "Any 
permitted". The 70p incentive to the customer seems a bit mean in that 
case.
-- 
Roland Perry

Rochdale Pioneers  wrote:
>
>So unless I've got this wrong:
>
>1.There is a GNER-set BusSVR fare from all stops along the TPE route
>up to and including Stalybridge and Dewsbury which is valid on West
>Coast, EMT and NatEx
>2. Its cheaper to buy a ticket from Huddersfield than from Manchester
>3. Because the origin is in West Yorkshire but isn't Leeds the NatEx
>routing allows you to go London-York-Leeds-Huddersfield
>
>So glad that ordinary punters aren't going to get at all confused....


Ssshhhhh!  

If Virgin Trains read this, they will be straight off to the High
Court to have the loophole well and truly closed, muttering
"Moderation of Competition!" over and over (and over) again.  ;-)

  
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 15 Jul, 15:55, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 07:10:39 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Rochdale Pioneers 
> remarked:
>
>
>
> >> >Good point. Huddersfield looks like this:
>
> >> >SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
> >> >SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
> >> >BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
> >> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
> >> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
> >> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP
>
> >> So there isn't an explicit entry for Business Saver - Manchester, which
> >> seems an anomaly, but there we are.

Have decided to leave it. There is something decidedly funny about the
way the system treats the BVR fare when I try and book it. I decided
to reserve a seat for travel outwards as "proof" the route is valid.
It says "no seats are available on that train/ticket combination".
Then I try Manchester - London on the same train with a SVR and there
are seats aplenty.

So its either a bug in the system and the ticket is fine, or its a
cock-up and its not valid. Either way I'll leave it for another day
and do risk and stress free travel from Teesside to London. With Grand
Central.....

Ian

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:55:45 +0100,
    Roland Perry  wrote:
>>>
>>> >SAVER RETURN           MANCHESTER              79.20 GBP
>>> >SAVER RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           79.90 GBP
>>> >BUSINESS SAVER         ANY PERMITTED           124.00 GBP
>>> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           ANY PERMITTED           210.00 GBP
>>> >STANDARD OPEN RETURN           MANCHESTER              245.00 GBP
>>> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              ANY PERMITTED           312.00 GBP
>>> >FIRST DINE AND GO.             AP PETERBRO&NXEC                332.00 GBP
>>> >FIRST OPEN RETURN              MANCHESTER              375.00 GBP
>>>
>
> Not quite. I think the rule is that if there's a specific route quoted 
> at a higher price, then that route is no longer "any permitted" for that 
> class of fare.
>
> The loophole here is the absence of the "via Manchester" Business Saver.

Oh boy! Really!

Do these SOR and FOR tickets say "Not Manchester" rather than "Any
Permitted" and "Any Permitted" rather than "Manchester". Or is it one of
the terms and conditions of the railway that you are expected to know of
every single possible ticket for your journey so that you can deduce
what is actually valid for your ticket.

If I had a 210GBP SOR ticket saying "Any Permitted" and I went via
Manchester, would the TOC have any hope at all of prevailing in court?

I can see a post to uk.legal.moderated needed ....

Tim.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/    http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

In message , at 
21:49:29 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tim Woodall  
remarked:
>Do these SOR and FOR tickets say "Not Manchester" rather than "Any
>Permitted" and "Any Permitted" rather than "Manchester".

The words mean: "By any route which is permitted"  and NOT
                 "Any route is permitted".

That's an important difference.

I agree that if the £210 Huddersfield SOR said "Not Manchester" it would 
be more transparent.

>Or is it one of the terms and conditions of the railway that you are 
>expected to know of every single possible ticket for your journey so 
>that you can deduce what is actually valid for your ticket.

It's a basic principle that the traveller is supposed to understand 
which are the permitted routes. I agree that the process of discovering 
which routes are permitted is somewhat opaque. Is it illegally opaque - 
well we all await a test case eagerly.

As you probably know the rules are in fact something like:

Direct trains   - easy to spot
Shortest route  - often easy to spot, but sometimes not
Mapped routes   - pretty opaque
less: Higher priced specific route tickets - very opaque unless you've
                                              had access to the sort of
                                              info we've been waving
                                              around in this thread.
less: Other specific dis-easements - iirc the Cheaper Newark-London
                                      ticket isn't available via
                                      Nottingham, despite it being a
                                      mapped route.

>If I had a 210GBP SOR ticket saying "Any Permitted" and I went via
>Manchester, would the TOC have any hope at all of prevailing in court?

The same is true of using a ticket on any other "non-permitted" route, 
for example the Newark-Nottingham-London example above.

That doesn't beg the underlying question, of course, but this particular 
Manchester route isn't special in any way.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 16 Jul, 09:42, Roland Perry  wrote:
> less: Higher priced specific route tickets - very opaque unless you've
>                                               had access to the sort of
>                                               info we've been waving
>                                               around in this thread.

I've heard this before, but I can't find it written anywhere. All I
can find in the Routeing Guide is:

"You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or
the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket
cannot be used for travel on a *route not listed in the Routeing
Guide* for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be
used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower
priced route specific fare exists."

Are you ignoring the bit I've highlighted, or is there some other
rule?

(Manchester is definitely a mapped route from Huddersfield)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jul 16, 9:42 am, Roland Perry  wrote:
>
> The same is true of using a ticket on any other "non-permitted" route,
> for example the Newark-Nottingham-London example above.
>
> That doesn't beg the underlying question, of course, but this particular
> Manchester route isn't special in any way.

Although there was this posted on the uk.l.m thread I started:

>In the case of Huddersfield to London, Huddersfield and London are both
>Routeing Points, so a fares check is not needed to determine permitted
>routes.
>
>Looking at the routeing guide shows that Huddersfield to London is valid
>by no less than *18* different combinations of maps!
>
>Included amongst these are Huddersfield - Manchester - London (err...so
>why is there a "route Manchester" ticket then?), Huddersfield -
>Sheffield - London, and Huddersfield - Doncaster - London. (The routes
>are oversimplified here, but you get the idea).

I've no idea if that is correct - nor, indeed if I've been confused in
this thread and we're not actually talking about Huddersfield to
London at all.

I can see the converstation on the train going like this:

Guard: "Can I see your ticket"
Passenger: Presents his Any Permitted ticket
Guard: "This can't be right, the price for this ticket on this train
is 245 pounds. This is a not via manchester ticket"
Passenger: "But it says any permitted"
Guard: "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to charge you a 35 pound
excess fare"
Passenger: "So why does it say Any permitted?"


The problem is that they've got you by the short and curlies by the
time the problem comes up. Unless you're really sure (which basically
means you've committed the routeing guide to memory last night - I've
never even seen it) you're not going to start arguing  on the train,
you're just going to pay, especially if it's a company paying for the
tickets - which it often is for these fully flexible fares.

I've hit a similar, but much smaller, snag once.

I wanted to travel to Redhill from Watford Junction, via London.
Because time was tight, and I know it can take hours to buy tickets at
Victoria, I bought my extension ticket at Watford Junction the night
before. I explicitly said I wanted to travel to London, then
underground to Victoria. My season ticket said Watford Junction to
London Terminals, and IIRC my extension ticket said London Terminals
to Redhill. I queried the ticket when I bought it - does this include
the underground travel - because my season ticket doesn't? "Yes - see
that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.

But when I got to Euston, neither of my tickets would let me through
the barriers to the Underground. So I had to buy another underground
ticket there and then. And, of course, the barriers eat your ticket so
you haven't then got the ticket to go back and complain later. I did
point out the little '+' sign on my ticket to the guard at the
barriers at Euston Underground but he just shook his head and refused
to let me through.

Tim.

In message 
, at 
02:42:48 on Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Mr Thant 
 remarked:
>> less: Higher priced specific route tickets - very opaque unless you've
>>                                               had access to the sort of
>>                                               info we've been waving
>>                                               around in this thread.
>
>I've heard this before, but I can't find it written anywhere. All I
>can find in the Routeing Guide is:
>
>"You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or
>the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket
>cannot be used for travel on a *route not listed in the Routeing
>Guide* for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be
>used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower
>priced route specific fare exists."
>
>Are you ignoring the bit I've highlighted, or is there some other
>rule?

This may be getting into the "something else" territory I mentioned a 
few days ago. I've been expressing the rule in the way I understood that 
it worked, but you are correct to highlight the opaqueness.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
02:51:09 on Wed, 16 Jul 2008, "google@woodall.me.uk" 
 remarked:
>Unless you're really sure (which basically means you've committed the 
>routeing guide to memory last night - I've never even seen it) you're 
>not going to start arguing  on the train,

The routing guide isn't quite as bad as some people make out.

Section C: Huddersfield [group] to London [group]

EE+PS+SY  ....  GM+MA ....

Where GM is routes into Greater Manchester, and MA is effectively the 
WCML Manchester and London.
-- 
Roland Perry

google@woodall.me.uk wrote:

> Guard: "Can I see your ticket"
> Passenger: Presents his Any Permitted ticket
> Guard: "This can't be right, the price for this ticket on this train
> is 245 pounds. This is a not via manchester ticket"
> Passenger: "But it says any permitted"
> Guard: "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to charge you a 35 pound
> excess fare"
> Passenger: "So why does it say Any permitted?"

If you're worried about this possibility, then order the ticket from one 
of the internet ticket sites, with a seat reservation.  Even the Virgin 
Trains website offers the £210 "any permitted" Standard Open Return fare 
for a connection from Huddersfield via Manchester to Euston (as well as 
the more expensive £245 "via Manchester" fare)!

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message , at 
> 21:49:29 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Tim Woodall  remarked:
>> Do these SOR and FOR tickets say "Not Manchester" rather than "Any
>> Permitted" and "Any Permitted" rather than "Manchester".
> 
> The words mean: "By any route which is permitted"  and NOT
>                 "Any route is permitted".

The Instructions for the ATOC Electronic routing guide 
http://www.atoc.org/rsp/_downloads/Routeing_Guide/enrg.htm says: 'If a 
choice of routes is available and the fare for the journey is described 
as "Any Permitted" route or is unrouted, you are free to choose any of 
the routes listed in the Guide.' Note _any of the routes listed_.

There is no mention of any criterion concerning the relative costs of 
"Any permitted" fares v. fares via a specified route which is included 
in the list of permitted routes.

Fares are only compared if there is a "Via X" fare, where "Via X" is 
_not_ one of the permitted routes listed in the routeing guide:
'You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or 
the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket 
cannot be used for travel on a route not listed in the Routeing Guide 
for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be used on 
any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower priced 
route specific fare exists.'

Relative fares are only considered in determining valid routes when the 
starting point and/or destination are not themselves routeing points, 
which doesn't apply for Huddersfield to London.

And for Huddersfield Group to London Group one of the many permitted 
routes is GM + MA (i.e. via Stalybridge to Manchester, then via any of 
the West Coast routes via Crewe or Stoke to London (including via 
Birmingham and/or via Northampton).

Thus, as I read the instructions for the Routeing Guide, a consequence 
of this is that any "Via Manchester" tickets that are more expensive 
than the equivalent "Any Permitted" fare should never be sold, since 
there is an obligation to sell the cheapest fare available for the 
journey being made.

My interpretation of the fares/routeing rules is supported by the 
National Rail website, since it offers £210 Standard Open Return fares 
on connections from Huddersfield to Euston, exactly the same price as 
connections to Kings Cross (and unless you click on the "more fares" 
link, it doesn't offer the £245 "via Manchester" ticket).

An interesting consequence of this is that, if you're doing a journey 
from Manchester to London, and for some reason you require an Open 
Return ticket, you should buy it from Huddersfield rather than 
Manchester, because it will save you £20 (&210 instead of £230)!  There 
are no restrictions on Open tickets concerning break of journey, 
starting late etc. to muddy the waters about the validity of this.

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

In message , at 12:59:35 on 
Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jeremy Double  remarked:
>Thus, as I read the instructions for the Routeing Guide, a consequence 
>of this is that any "Via Manchester" tickets that are more expensive 
>than the equivalent "Any Permitted" fare should never be sold, since 
>there is an obligation to sell the cheapest fare available for the 
>journey being made.

You have made a good case for this. And are therefore comfortably inside 
my original #4 "Something else" proposition. In this case "A massive 
loophole".

>An interesting consequence of this is that, if you're doing a journey 
>from Manchester to London, and for some reason you require an Open 
>Return ticket, you should buy it from Huddersfield rather than 
>Manchester, because it will save you £20 (&210 instead of £230)!

Or more to the original point, if you don't need to get to London on the 
first few trains of the day (but do want to return in the evening peak), 
a Huddersfield Business Saver at £124, saving £106.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:42:48 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
 wrote:

>"You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or
>the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket
>cannot be used for travel on a *route not listed in the Routeing
>Guide* for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be
>used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower
>priced route specific fare exists."

That wasn't there previously.  If that is indeed what it reads now,
this would suggest that the cheaper fare is indeed now valid via
Manchester.

Neil

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

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "google@woodall.me.uk"
 wrote:

> "Yes - see
>that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.

The Maltese Cross would, but not the + or *, which used to be used as
some kind of delimiter (as I recall).

Neil

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

In message , at 19:05:02 on Wed, 
16 Jul 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>"You may only use all the permitted routes if the fare is unrouted or
>>the route is described as "any permitted". An "any permitted" ticket
>>cannot be used for travel on a *route not listed in the Routeing
>>Guide* for which a higher priced route specific fare exists. It can be
>>used on any route not listed in the Routeing Guide for which a lower
>>priced route specific fare exists."
>
>That wasn't there previously.  If that is indeed what it reads now,
>this would suggest that the cheaper fare is indeed now valid via
>Manchester.

So maybe the mystery is almost solved? In addition to apparently putting 
this extra get-out in the rules, they've failed to rename the SOR "Any 
Permitted" ticket as "Not Manchester". (And the "via Manchester" ticket 
"Any Permitted"). The Business Saver simply becomes "Not Manchester", 
without any particular need to introduce an "Any Permitted".
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "google@woodall.me.uk"
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Yes - see
>> that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.
> 
> The Maltese Cross would, but not the + or *, which used to be used as
> some kind of delimiter (as I recall).

What does a symbol representing an LT roundel mean? 
Does it mean my GMPTE Train and bus ranger is valid
on the Underground?

Charlie

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:21:47 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:

>What does a symbol representing an LT roundel mean? 
>Does it mean my GMPTE Train and bus ranger is valid
>on the Underground?

No, it's just a padding character between two parts of the ticket
number (same for all tickets I think, including the, err, Travelcard I
have in front of me).

It is, I agree, a bit misleading!

Neil

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

On 16 Jul, 20:05, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> That wasn't there previously.  If that is indeed what it reads now,
> this would suggest that the cheaper fare is indeed now valid via
> Manchester.

It's been there since at least December 2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061206032444/http://www.atoc.org/rsp/_downloads/Routeing_Guide/instructions.htm

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:21:47 +0100, Charlie Hulme
>  wrote:
> 
>> What does a symbol representing an LT roundel mean? 
>> Does it mean my GMPTE Train and bus ranger is valid
>> on the Underground?
> 
> No, it's just a padding character between two parts of the ticket
> number (same for all tickets I think, including the, err, Travelcard I
> have in front of me).
> 
> It is, I agree, a bit misleading!

I think the two numbers wither side are station codes, 
  or similar. This one reads

0056[roundel]2770N51

I know 2770 is Davenport, because that's the number you 
put in when using GMPTE's automatic phone train running 
service. 0056 means a ranger maybe? What's the N51?

The ticket number No.71709 is printed in tiny print on 
the red strip at the bottom. (This is from Davenport's 
Cubic' machine.)

By the way (and Off-topic), how are you supposed to use 
a 4-in-8 flexi-rover in an automatic barrier when it 
has a second card with date boxes to be filled in ... 
stapled to the back of it??

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> By the way (and Off-topic), how are you supposed to use 
> a 4-in-8 flexi-rover in an automatic barrier when it 
> has a second card with date boxes to be filled in ... 
> stapled to the back of it??

I got a nice blue vinyl holder with mine (without even asking for it)
and the ticket and validity card were in separate pockets, so both could
be seen by anyone checking tickets.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938598.html
(43 063 at Basingstoke, 2 Apr 1998)

Chris Tolley wrote:
> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
>> By the way (and Off-topic), how are you supposed to use 
>> a 4-in-8 flexi-rover in an automatic barrier when it 
>> has a second card with date boxes to be filled in ... 
>> stapled to the back of it??
> 
> I got a nice blue vinyl holder with mine (without even asking for it)
> and the ticket and validity card were in separate pockets, so both could
> be seen by anyone checking tickets.

That's what I used to get, but the last couple of 
times, one at a VT office and another at a Northern 
one, I've been given the stapled version, so it looks 
like the instructions have been changed. Not to save 
the cost of the little wallet, surely?

Charlie

On Jul 16, 8:06 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "goo...@woodall.me.uk"
>
>  wrote:
> > "Yes - see
> >that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.
>
> The Maltese Cross would, but not the + or *, which used to be used as
> some kind of delimiter (as I recall).
>
Pretty sure it was just a +, but I can't remember for certain now.

But it's a bit pathetic if I buy a ticket. I'm then not sure whether
the ticket I've been given is actually the correct ticket so I confirm
it there and then and I'm explicitly told that it's the right ticket
for my journey and then, only once I'm half way though my journey do I
discover I've been sold the wrong thing.

It's even more annoying that the barriers then carefully retain any
evidence of this misselling.

Oh well, it's a long time ago and only a few pounds. But it's funny
how these mistakes are always in favour of the railways. I've had
other cases where I've been sold the wrong ticket (more expensive than
needed) and I've queried it and been assured it's the right one.
Later, once my journey has completed I've investigated further and
discovered it's the wrong ticket - e.g. I went with my partner to
Cambridge on one occasion. I don't remember why but we had to do
Watford Junction->Euston, then to Totenham Hale on the underground
before continuing to Cambridge. So I needed one ticket to do that
journey and another ticket to extend my gold card from Euston. Both
tickets were the same price - and I queried it at the time but I was
assured my ticket was the cheapest ticket. Once my journey was done I
found out that I should have been sold a ticket from South Hampstead
for me (I don't understand why not Euston) which again would have been
cheaper that the ticket I was sold. Without the totenham hale bit I'd
just have bought a ticket from KX to Cambridge and walked from Euston.

It's much simpler now - I just use PAYG and buy rail tickets when I
need them without the complications of extending my gold card. Saves
me a small fortune as well.

Tim.

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> That's what I used to get, but the last couple of times, one at a VT 
> office and another at a Northern one, I've been given the stapled 
> version, so it looks like the instructions have been changed. Not to 
> save the cost of the little wallet, surely?

I bought 2 South Wales flexi-rovers by post from ATW's own website last
month and they arrived in wallets. We didn't get the little pack with
maps and vouchers until we rang and asked for it, though.

We didn't try them in any ticket barriers (I assumed they wouldn't
accept them since they wouldn't know if I'd filled the date box in).

Cheers

mark-r

Mark Robinson wrote:

> 
> We didn't try them in any ticket barriers (I assumed they wouldn't
> accept them since they wouldn't know if I'd filled the date box in).
> 

Good point - the clever thing would be to give you four 
tickets which were only valid on the first day they 
were put through a ticket gate.

Mind you, barriers don't know whether you have a 
railcard either!

Charlie

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "google@woodall.me.uk"
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Yes - see
>> that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.
> 
> The Maltese Cross would, but not the + or *, which used to be used as
> some kind of delimiter (as I recall).
> 
My saver return from Bedworth to Highbury & Islington ("HIGHBURY + 
ISLTN") bought on the Nuneaton to Coventry dogbox had  and "+ANY 
PERMITTED". I queried whether the "+" would do the trick, but in fact I 
had no problem with the gates either way at Euston. It would not work at 
Highbury, however, but for some reason that is always the case, whatever 
ticket I use!

I've said this before, but surely the usual symbol is a dagger, not a 
Maltese cross, which is a much more complicated form - see 
http://www.orderofmalta.org.uk/cross.htm

Peter Beale

On Jul 17, 4:45 pm, Peter Beale  wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:51:09 -0700 (PDT), "goo...@woodall.me.uk"
> >  wrote:
>
> >> "Yes - see
> >> that little '+' sign there, that means underground travel is included.
>
> > The Maltese Cross would, but not the + or *, which used to be used as
> > some kind of delimiter (as I recall).
>
> My saver return from Bedworth to Highbury & Islington ("HIGHBURY +
> ISLTN") bought on the Nuneaton to Coventry dogbox had  and "+ANY
> PERMITTED". I queried whether the "+" would do the trick, but in fact I
> had no problem with the gates either way at Euston. It would not work at
> Highbury, however, but for some reason that is always the case, whatever
> ticket I use!
>
> I've said this before, but surely the usual symbol is a dagger, not a
> Maltese cross, which is a much more complicated form - seehttp://www.orderofmalta.org.uk/cross.htm
>
Ah. Well I think it was more of a dagger than a plus.

Not what I would think of as a Maltese cross which I think of as the
thing used in movie projectors to advance the film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Cross_mechanism

Tim.

google@woodall.me.uk wrote:

> 
> Not what I would think of as a Maltese cross which I think of as the
> thing used in movie projectors to advance the film.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Cross_mechanism

So how do you make a Maltese cross?

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:XNKfk.7541$O%2.845@newsfe05.ams2...
> google@woodall.me.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> Not what I would think of as a Maltese cross which I think of as the
>> thing used in movie projectors to advance the film.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Cross_mechanism
>
> So how do you make a Maltese cross?
Is that a Malteser..?
Bri

"BH Williams"  wrote in message 
news:g5nv8c$iru$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
> news:XNKfk.7541$O%2.845@newsfe05.ams2...
>> google@woodall.me.uk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not what I would think of as a Maltese cross which I think of as the
>>> thing used in movie projectors to advance the film.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Cross_mechanism
>>
>> So how do you make a Maltese cross?
> Is that a Malteser..?

Ah yes - eat his last Malteser - that'll be it!

Paul

In message <XNKfk.7541$O%2.845@newsfe05.ams2>
          Charlie Hulme  wrote:

> google@woodall.me.uk wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Not what I would think of as a Maltese cross which I think of as the
> > thing used in movie projectors to advance the film.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Cross_mechanism
> 
> So how do you make a Maltese cross?

Steal his beer

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

On 16 Jul, 12:58, Jeremy Double  wrote:
> goo...@woodall.me.uk wrote:
> > Guard: "Can I see your ticket"
> > Passenger: Presents his Any Permitted ticket
> > Guard: "This can't be right, the price for this ticket on this train
> > is 245 pounds. This is a not via manchester ticket"
> > Passenger: "But it says any permitted"
> > Guard: "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to charge you a 35 pound
> > excess fare"
> > Passenger: "So why does it say Any permitted?"
>
> If you're worried about this possibility, then order the ticket from one
> of the internet ticket sites, with a seat reservation.  Even the Virgin
> Trains website offers the £210 "any permitted" Standard Open Return fare
> for a connection from Huddersfield via Manchester to Euston (as well as
> the more expensive £245 "via Manchester" fare)!

I was looking at the Business Saver Fare rather than the SOR but the
principle is the same. I tried booking a seat on a Business Saver and
was told none were available on that ticket/train. I then tried a
Saver ticket from Manchester and there were plenty of seats. It was
happy to sell me the ticket but then told me I wasn't able to reserve
a seat.

So for that trip I went down the east coast. Would still be interested
in doing the west coast at some point but not with ticket combos that
noone seems able to decide if its valid or not....

Ian