Changes to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage

[Jonfun]

No you wouldn't. What evidence do you have to suggest this is the case?

I don't know the specifics of the ticket that you're on about, but having googled "GTR Super Off Peak" and found this, I don't think anyone can deny that Thameslink need to develop their skills in effective written communication. But that's irrelevant as the restriction in that case is one regarding time of use.

Time restricted tickets are done so by means of an annotation in the restriction text - the conditions of carriage don't have a say on these other than Train Companies are allowed to set them. This can be checked using an online journey planner or consultation with the ticket seller.

Break of journey restrictions are also done by way of the restriction text, again with minimal input from the conditions of carriage. Again, this can be checked by consulting with the ticket seller.

I don't think it would be unfair or inconsistent to reword condition 19(c) to say something about it being permitted unless otherwise stated in the specific product's terms and conditions. Which would be available, as per the Conditions of Carriage, from the ticket seller.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, though some people seem to be of the view that each TOC or PTE should be allowed to have it's own definition of "journey" (Saveaway partly used in peak hours)

There's a lot of confusing, anti-passenger nonsense that should be stamped out once and for all by making the NRCoC more passenger-friendly, and absolutely not - as some TOCs want - less so.

If you buy a Saveaway then you agree to the terms and conditions of the ticket. If you don't want to be subject to the Saveaway terms and conditions, then you're perfectly at liberty to buy the standard rail-only fare to which the Saveaway terms would not apply.

I strongly agree that the NRCoC needs to be more passenger friendly, but that doesn't extend to making unintended loopholes which people have been using to get cheaper fares legitimate. Making it passenger friendly should be an exercise in removing the blabber which your average passenger can't understand, and stating in simple terms with no grey areas exactly what is and what isn't permitted.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can confirm that changes to the NRCoC are proposed relatively regularly within the industry's appropriate fora : ATOC, RSP, RDP, etc. These proposals are largely commercially sensitive and confidential. It is a matter of fact that more than half of these proposals fail to reach a consensus and lead to no further development (and certainly not to any discussion with the Department and subsequent implementation).

 

[yorkie]

Making it passenger friendly should be an exercise in.....

.... at the very least preserving all our existing rights, making these rights clearer, and not allowing them to be taken away from us by hidden 'overriding' T&Cs.

 

[Jonfun]

Preserving all the intended existing rights, yes. The ones which aren't "rights" but are grey areas in the wording being abused, no. It should be made black and white so it is expressly clear to both the train company and passenger as to what is allowed and what isn't.

 

[Starmill]

As for changes to compensation arrangements - the "impact" of these will not be contractual. AP fares may increase, tiers may be removed or restricted etc.

I notice this is not the first time you hint at this; do you expect us to believe that changes to the compensation arrangements are going to cause wholesale revision of a yield management strategy? Pull the other one

TOCs are not going to let their bottom line be affected by government proposals.

The Government isn't proposing anything - it's regulating. What makes you think the TOCs have a choice? Any business that pretends there's no such thing as the Demand Curve is in for a little shock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think folk need to bear in mind that yes, the Conditions of Carriage prevents Train Companies from taking passengers for a ride, but it does work the other way as well. Rules which are in place to give a genuine benefit are more likely to be eroded if people are abusing them to gain savings which aren't in the spirit of the conditions.

I think you overstate this - people who don't want to pay for travel, the people who want something for nothing, simply fare evade. Most who try it get away with it, because it's cheaper for the industry to let most of them get away with it and just scare anyone who thinks of it.

But nobody in the Fare Advice and Policy section is trying to steal travel. Insead in my experience most people are trying to get what they need for a fair price. Occasionally a bargain walks in. Much more often people feel they have no choice but to pay over-inflated fares. I think the people you have in mind and are suggesting might 'abuse' the rules are doing the right thing on all counts. The train companies are trying to simply rip-off anyone and everyone by charging in a lot of cases grossly unaffordable walk-up fares. Some people react to that by resorting to theft. Some try to pay a price they consider fair for the product they receive, and make the journeys they need to legitimately. Other people ignore the ridiculousness of the TOCs walk-up prices and take their car where they could have gone by train, thereby increasing damage to the environment. Who here is being the most responsible?

 

[First class]

I notice this is not the first time you hint at this; do you expect us to believe that changes to the compensation arrangements are going to cause wholesale revision of a yield management strategy? Pull the other one

Any business that pretends there's no such thing as the Demand Curve is in for a little shock.

As I've also said before - any changes MUST be cost neutral and the TOCs will ensure that their revenue is not affected by this change.

There are multiple areas that you can start looking to cost cut in - but they will all eventually cause the customer to pay more, either via taxpayer subsidy or fares etc.

Or perhaps you don't understand that the change from RTVs to cash will result in tens of millions £££ leaving the rail industry. At least RTVs ensured the money remained within the industry.

You will also start to see websites popping up taking a hefty % cut if you let them claim compensation on your behalf etc.

I am assuring you, 100%, that those tens of millions of rail industry pounds will not be accepted, and you either need to accept a higher initial fare in some circumstances, or cuts to the service provision elsewhere, be it staffing, first class, innovation etc.

At many TOCs, the lowest level AP fares are not profitable anyway- and are mainly "headline" fares that can be removed, without affecting demand.

 

[Starmill]

As I've also said before - any changes MUST be cost neutral and the TOCs will ensure that their revenue is not affected by this change.

There are multiple areas that you can start looking to cost cut in - but they will all eventually cause the customer to pay more, either via taxpayer subsidy or fares etc.

Well, maybe they want it to be cost-neutral, but they can only accept the changes as they have been imposed and do their best around that. Neither you nor they can ensure that they won't start to lose out as a result of the changes.

Or perhaps you don't understand that the change from RTVs to cash will result in tens of millions £££ leaving the rail industry. At least RTVs ensured the money remained within the industry.

I agree, I was opposed to the change primarily for this reason.

You will also start to see websites popping up taking a hefty % cut if you let them claim compensation on your behalf etc.

Some such services already exist. I think people are well-advised to steer clear of them.

I am assuring you, 100%, that those tens of millions of rail industry pounds will not be accepted, and you either need to accept a higher initial fare in some circumstances, or cuts to the service provision elsewhere, be it staffing, first class, innovation etc.

I agree the TOCs will probably like it even less than I did. I wonder how many angry emails from the top have been sent over the past few months? Unfortunately you still don't seem to be getting what I was saying about the demand curve. Basically you can't increase the price of something and just expect demand for it to remain the same. Therefore higher fares ≠more revenue. It depends on the price elasticity of demand. And...

At many TOCs, the lowest level AP fares are not profitable anyway- and are mainly "headline" fares that can be removed, without affecting demand.

Precisely. So why were they offering loss-making tickets in the first place? Because the people who buy them would never pay the higher prices. Not all TOCs use them as a headline fare. But if they do presently, and they remove them, they lose their marketing tool and gain very little extra revenue in return because if it won't affect demand they must have been selling so few in the first place!

The idea that people will just keep on coming back, receiving worse service (as you say, cuts to First Class, customer service etc) and being charged more is almost unique to the railway industry.

My own amateur analysis suggests that it would probably be revenue positive to decrease quite a lot of fares. Long-distance Super Off-Peak returns, for example. I think the main driver against this is concern about overcrowding.

 

[Jonfun]

But nobody in the Fare Advice and Policy section is trying to steal travel. Insead in my experience most people are trying to get what they need for a fair price. Occasionally a bargain walks in. Much more often people feel they have no choice but to pay over-inflated fares. I think the people you have in mind and are suggesting might 'abuse' the rules are doing the right thing on all counts. The train companies are trying to simply rip-off anyone and everyone by charging in a lot of cases grossly unaffordable walk-up fares. Some people react to that by resorting to theft. Some try to pay a price they consider fair for the product they receive, and make the journeys they need to legitimately. Other people ignore the ridiculousness of the TOCs walk-up prices and take their car where they could have gone by train, thereby increasing damage to the environment. Who here is being the most responsible?

I have no problem with people reducing fares by legitimate means. It's a consequence of the illogical and complicated fares and routing system the industry adopts that means that with a little bit of detective work, split ticketing or stopping short etc can reduce the cost, which is fair game. I don't propose any alteration to the rules themselves here; other than to perhaps define them more strictly and simply. What I do object to is the exploiting of grey areas which just end up descending into an I think this but the TOC thinks that situation, which isn't transparent and it isn't fair on anyone.

Unfortunately though, travel isn't a god given right. I think going to the cinema's quite expensive, so if I'm a bit short on money at the end of the month then I'll just have to not go. I've just got back off a short holiday, I could have flown, but decided it was much cheaper to take the slower option of the ferry. Rail travel's no different. Of course, people should be encouraged to travel by train, and that is why discounted tickets allow folk who can travel at less busy times or on less busy routes exist. But you can't expect something for nothing, and in these days where the government wants the railway to pay for itself then the money has to come from somewhere - and that somewhere will have to be the passenger.

 

[Starmill]

I have no problem with people reducing fares by legitimate means. It's a consequence of the illogical and complicated fares and routing system the industry adopts that means that with a little bit of detective work, split ticketing or stopping short etc can reduce the cost, which is fair game. I don't propose any alteration to the rules themselves here; other than to perhaps define them more strictly and simply. What I do object to is the exploiting of grey areas which just end up descending into an I think this but the TOC thinks that situation, which isn't transparent and it isn't fair on anyone.

I think that sounds fair enough. The TOCs don't appear to have making things simpler or reducing grey areas as a motive for these changes though.

Unfortunately though, travel isn't a god given right. I think going to the cinema's quite expensive, so if I'm a bit short on money at the end of the month then I'll just have to not go. I've just got back off a short holiday, I could have flown, but decided it was much cheaper to take the slower option of the ferry. Rail travel's no different.

Perhaps this is one of our fundamental differences - I think rail and bus travel are different. They should be high in quality, sufficient in quantity that everyone who needs them can use them and affordable to all such people. They don't need to be free, but they should always be cheaper than driving. Our society is built around the need for people to travel to places - in a way that it will never be built around any sort of need to go to the cinema.

Of course, people should be encouraged to travel by train, and that is why discounted tickets allow folk who can travel at less busy times or on less busy routes exist. But you can't expect something for nothing, and in these days where the government wants the railway to pay for itself then the money has to come from somewhere - and that somewhere will have to be the passenger.

I think everyone should be encouraged to travel by rail without those provisos - if the route is too busy it needs to be upgraded to offer more capacity. As I said before a vast majority of passengers don't want something for nothing - they just want a fair deal. Finally, I think that the government has the wrong focus in asking the railway to pay for itself. Instead it should be working out who needs public transport services that doesn't currently have access to them, and finding the most efficient way to provide that to everyone.

 

[Hadders]

I don't know the specifics of the ticket that you're on about, but having googled "GTR Super Off Peak" and found this, I don't think anyone can deny that Thameslink need to develop their skills in effective written communication. But that's irrelevant as the restriction in that case is one regarding time of use.

Time restricted tickets are done so by means of an annotation in the restriction text - the conditions of carriage don't have a say on these other than Train Companies are allowed to set them. This can be checked using an online journey planner or consultation with the ticket seller.

Break of journey restrictions are also done by way of the restriction text, again with minimal input from the conditions of carriage. Again, this can be checked by consulting with the ticket seller.

I don't think it would be unfair or inconsistent to reword condition 19(c) to say something about it being permitted unless otherwise stated in the specific product's terms and conditions. Which would be available, as per the Conditions of Carriage, from the ticket seller.

You've already fallen for the confusion! Thameslink and Great Northern have introduced web only super off peak day return tickets over the summer (not to be confused with the super off peak day returns which are a permanent product available at weekends only). Try and find the terms and conditions or restriction text for this ticket and you'll struggle. That's not passenger friendly or simple and we'd end up with more of this sort of stuff, imo.

Promotional fares are great but the 'problem' is they introduce the opportunity to split tickets on longer journeys (and why shouldn't passengers benefit from this?). If you introduced restrictions on the use of certain types of tickets that can be used as part of a combination just imagine the confusion - for example I might be able to use an off-peak return as part of a combination but not a super off peak day return (in case it made my through fare too cheap!) This would be anything but simple.

 

[bb21]

Preserving all the intended existing rights, yes. The ones which aren't "rights" but are grey areas in the wording being abused, no. It should be made black and white so it is expressly clear to both the train company and passenger as to what is allowed and what isn't.

I broadly agree with your sentiments. That said, there may be practical difficulties with the implementation of such amendments.

How do we pin down exactly what the intended rights were? Are all details of historical discussions between TOCs and ATOC keep on file? Were these issues clarified at the discussion stage? Were these communicated to the Department at past meetings if so? Were these documented at the Department anywhere? How do we otherwise know what were genuinely the intended rights and not something certain TOCs cheekily suggest to see whether they could get away with it?

Take the example of Condition 19(c), a number of reasonable interpretations are available. Did the industry intend to mean that only one season and one non-season were permitted to be combined at any time? What about season + non-season + season? Season + non-season + non-season? Non-season + season + non-season? What about season + non-season + season where the portion covered by the middle ticket includes no stops anywhere? In my opinion that final one should reasonably be permitted but a current reading of the NRCoC would certainly not permit it.

I am generally in favour of making things clearer to all passenger, however it must be done in a way that is reasonable and more importantly, in a way that does not unintentionally cause adverse effects on those who want to do things in a reasonable way. That would require any proposed amendments to go through a rigorous and comprehensive appraisal stages to ensure that all bases are covered. Unfortunately existing track record does not speak volumes in this respect which is why I am currently sceptical of any proposed changes until I see them myself.

As for "grey" areas being abused. I do not generally see an issue with that provided that it is all done legitimately and above board. The TOCs (in conjunction with ATOC and the Department) are the ones setting out the terms of conditions so "have the upper hand" so to speak. Passengers are not generally in a strong position to bargain, and using these terms to their own advantage is about the only way they can fight back.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Or perhaps you don't understand that the change from RTVs to cash will result in tens of millions £££ leaving the rail industry. At least RTVs ensured the money remained within the industry.

Surely the money leaves the industry anyway, just in a roundabout way?

I travel, I get delayed, I receive £20 RTV. Next time I travel, I use my £20 RTV instead of cash. The cash I would otherwise have bought my ticket with I spend outside the rail industry.

Unless it can be demonstrated that RTV's stimulate additional rail travel, or get thrown away unredeemed (as happens with a percentage of shop vouchers and the like). But, if you go to the trouble of claiming delay compensation, you will probably also go to the trouble of using the voucher before it expires?

Automatic compensation for delays (for tickets bought by card so the purchaser is known), now that would cost the industry £millions.

 

[bb21]

Surely the money leaves the industry anyway, just in a roundabout way?

I travel, I get delayed, I receive £20 RTV. Next time I travel, I use my £20 RTV instead of cash. The cash I would otherwise have bought my ticket with I spend outside the rail industry.

Unless it can be demonstrated that RTV's stimulate additional rail travel, or get thrown away unredeemed (as happens with a percentage of shop vouchers and the like). But, if you go to the trouble of claiming delay compensation, you will probably also go to the trouble of using the voucher before it expires?

Automatic compensation for delays (for tickets bought by card so the purchaser is known), now that would cost the industry £millions.

I know from personal experience that it does indeed stimulate additional travel. There are several journeys which I would not have made if I had to pay hard cash. I cannot speak for other people but this is definitely true for me.

The unredeemed vouchers must also be a consideration. I currently have a 48p voucher from Tesco for price promise lying in my wallet since three weeks ago and it expires next week. Twice I have been there since and on both occasions I forgot to redeem it. It would of course have been easier for them just to refund me the difference on that shopping but they decided that they would rather get me in a second time, in the hope that I pick more shopping up. TOCs probably think along similar lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would of course have been easier for them just to refund me the difference on that shopping but they decided that they would rather get me in a second time, in the hope that I pick more shopping up. TOCs probably think along similar lines.

Or they hope, correctly, that many people will forget to redeem them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, though some people seem to be of the view that each TOC or PTE should be allowed to have it's own definition of "journey"

I would suggest that ATOC need one definition for the national fares system, but that PTE tickets by their nature are outside of this and are sold and used according to the PTE's T&Cs.

 

[sheff1]

Or perhaps you don't understand that the change from RTVs to cash will result in tens of millions £££ leaving the rail industry. At least RTVs ensured the money remained within the industry.

I am assuring you, 100%, that those tens of millions of rail industry pounds will not be accepted, and you either need to accept a higher initial fare in some circumstances, or cuts to the service provision elsewhere, be it staffing, first class, innovation etc.

.... or what about reducing the amount of compensation being paid by reducing the number of 30 min plus delays.

 

[gray1404]

I used a RTV at a station today in the "travel centre" bit (rather then the ticket office). The lady there said they [the staff] are worried what might happen that with customers already booking online already, now loosing more customers who won't be getting given RTVs.