That is a perfectly sensible change to make.
Yes, that was the change I was suggesting. I think it is common sense- the train company isn't losing out and the passenger doesn't get unfairly punished.
That is a perfectly sensible change to make.
The problem with that is determining what 'would have been paid' when Advances are involved.I'd go for
...as long as the fare(s) actually paid are equal to or greater than the fare(s) that would have been paid.
It would even be something that could be used as good PR - e.g. "Bought tickets with a Two Together Railcard? Don't worry if your travel companion can't make it - you can still travel alone with both tickets and the Railcard"That is a perfectly sensible change to make.
Because we haven't done it in the past so our way must be better.Why don't we just have a national railcard that anyone can buy (like the Bahn Card in Germany)?
I don't disagree, but there is a world of difference between 'should be valid' and 'is valid'.I understand why there are rules but if I travel with both tickets I think that should be valid!
I know, hence me researching what alternative ticket I need if my friend can't comeI don't disagree, but there is a world of difference between 'should be valid' and 'is valid'.
The problem with that is determining what 'would have been paid' when Advances are involved.
It shouldn't be a problem. It's impossible to buy two tickets with a third off and pay less than buying one undiscounted ticket, advances included.
I'm not convinced that you can make that blanket statement.It shouldn't be a problem. It's impossible to buy two tickets with a third off and pay less than buying one undiscounted ticket, advances included.
I'm not convinced that you can make that blanket statement.
One thing I've learned is that there's nothing simple where ticketing is concerned! I can't remember at the moment but I get the feeling that I made the same argument previously and someone came up with a scenario that broke the general rule.It's simple mathematics, surely?
My luck would be the guard hangs around near me until they realise I'm lying or hammer on the toilet door demanding that my (non-existent) friend comes out immediately.I have a question, what is the purpose of the must travel together rule?
I would interpretate it is to stop people traveling at separate times and gaining a discount, or more to the point stop people from buying one ticket on a discount.
As such, although he technically breached the conditions, by traveling with both discounted tickets both guards should have been understanding and not charged him the extra £150.
Alternatively just lie. Say your friend is in the loo and hope the guard leaves you alone for the rest of the trip.
Even this is wrong.A person travelling on the same train from Carlisle to London, but with an advance ticket for an earlier train (and no connection/delay issues) would similarly have been required to purchase a new, full fare, unrestricted ticket to their destination when their ticket was checked on the train.
What a load of nonsense.That extra flexibility for Two Together customers would mean they would tend to buy fewer full price advance tickets and that would translate into a loss for the TOC.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, that isn't what the current T&Cs say and no amount of hand waving on an Internet forum about 'should be' changes that unless someone with actual power happens to be reading? (He asks hopefully)I would say the former - the railway has its money, and avoids the minimal cost of carrying the missing person, and avoids the bad publicity and ill will of rejecting a ticket.
That is a perfectly sensible change to make.
I'm not saying he was wrong, just that he was in the wrong wrt the T&Cs.
If my friend doesn't come my ticket isn't valid either and my only choice is to buy a full price ticket
Staff instructions are that a Railcard-discounted ticket is not to be excesses to a non-discounted ticket. The capability does exist to do such an excess on ticket issuing systems, and some staff do sell them.
If you approach it from the standpoint that the customer is wrong then yes, you're going to get nowhere unless you are courteous. However I don't think what Mr Dunne did was really wrong - he had caused no loss to the TOC (in fact, he had paid more than he would have if he had booked just to travel alone).
I think a lot of people get hung up about the fact that he was in breach of the Railcard terms and hence had no valid ticket. Be this as it may, it was not as if he had just gotten on another random train other than his booked one. He was substantially in compliance with his ticket terms - and his breach was one that was beneficial, if anything, to the TOC (as one less person was using the First Class facilities!). To then penalise the passenger is a very disappointing attitude and I find it difficult to see how encouraging said penalisation can be justified.
If the rail industry wants to get a better reputation then they need to change their policy stop doing things like this. They need to train staff on the new policy. And then they need to penalise staff who subsequently still get it wrong, and compensate the passenger.
If people start to abuse these
It's hard to suggest that someone travelling with both tickets and the Railcard is abusing anything. And the TOCs have brought the negative publicity on themselves by having such an incredibly silly policy.
The discount exists to attract people from cars. If I planned to go by car I don't have to pay extra if one person doesn't travel, I just have to pay the same fuel cost (near enough).