Penalty Fares being charged for being on the wrong train on an Advance ticket

[yorkie]

Because the world has changed in the 21 years since that document was written?

Have any of the fundamentals which I quoted changed?

For example, mobile ticketing didn't exist in any form then

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it; the same issue could occur regardless of whether a TVM or phone was used.

and it predates the industry's change to the Anytime/(Super) Off-Peak/Advance ticketing structure.

The structure didn't change; only the names.

It's not at all clear that if the SRA existed that it would have the same view that it did then.

Is there any good reason why people of integrity and intelligence who actually understood the issues (i.e. not the DfT, who are utterly incompetent) would have a different view today?

 

[bcarmicle]

A penalty fares scheme is most suited to urban or suburban train services where most stations have ticket facilities, and where busy trains and short intervals between stations make it impossible to check every passenger’s ticket between every stop. We may question the need for a penalty fares scheme to cover long-distance services, where a conductor is able to check every passenger, or rural services operated as ‘paytrains’, where most stations are unstaffed and it is normal practice to buy tickets on board the train.

This seems to represent a settled conclusion; it does not explain why a conductor being able to check every passenger or it being normal practice to buy tickets onboard justifies not having a Penalty Fares scheme. Now clearly the latter is undesirable because it may lead to passengers thinking that they are supposed to buy tickets on the train; however, it does not explain the full motivation so it is quite hard to see what they did and did not take into account.

In deciding which trains should be penalty fares trains, an operator should take account of the geography of the train service, the ticket facilities available at the stations which will be served and whether the area covered can be easily explained to passengers.

One might suggest that it is easier to commmunicate to passengers that all trains and stations are Penalty Fares services unless it is impossible to buy a ticket before travel. The SRA could have (not unreasonably) come to that view after observing the confusion that Penalty Fares have caused.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it; the same issue could occur regardless of whether a TVM or phone was used.

I raise it not because it is material to the point at hand, but because it is a good example of how rail has changed over the past twenty one years. However, the related point that ticketing has changed speaks to

Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes.

The widespread use of journey planners may well have changed the SRA's view on the matter.

The structure didn't change; only the names.

Which could have made the situation clearer to customers than previously. Again it's hard to say what the SRA would have made of it (even if the views of many forum members is clear) given it no longer exists.

Is there any good reason why people of integrity and intelligence who actually understood the issues (i.e. not the DfT, who are utterly incompetent) would have a different view today?

I would ask that you explain why you think the SRA necessarily understood the issues and why the DfT does not. It is important to separate policy decisions which we disagree with from general allegations of incompetence, and while I see the former, I am not satisifed as to the latter.


I agree that the situation with regards to Penalty Fares as it is is far from ideal, but I do not think that relying on the SRA as an authority is appropriate.

 

[Watershed]

Because the world has changed in the 21 years since that document was written?

In what way have things changed that are material to a policy of not issuing Penalty Fares for breach of a ticket restriction?

If anything, ticket restrictions are now more complex and widespread (witness the rollout of Advances for many short journeys), meaning that protections from Penalty Fares should be increased.

For example, mobile ticketing didn't exist in any form then

I'm unsure how this makes any difference to the matter at hand?

it predates the industry's change to the Anytime/(Super) Off-Peak/Advance ticketing structure

The exact ticket type names or restrictions are irrelevant; it's about the principle that you shouldn't be issued with a Penalty Fare merely for being in breach of ticket restrictions.

In other words - if you have a ticket which, in principle, covers the journey you're making, the SRA's policy was that you shouldn't be issued with a Penalty Fare.

It's not at all clear that if the SRA existed that it would have the same view that it did then.

Perhaps not, but one can be sure that they would be approaching it from an independent mindset.

Instead, we suffer the partisan agenda of the DfT, which is only interested in doing things that minimise costs, maximise revenue and sound good in the media, regardless of whether they're actually effective - e.g. the Rail Ombudsman and new Penalty Fares appeal processes.

 

[Kite159]

Because the world has changed in the 21 years since that document was written? For example, mobile ticketing didn't exist in any form then, and it predates the industry's change to the Anytime/(Super) Off-Peak/Advance ticketing structure. It's not at all clear that if the SRA existed that it would have the same view that it did then.

And the increase of advance tickets in the current climate compared to 21 years ago when that document was written.

Unless the SRA could predict that in the future you will be able to buy advance tickets for journeys lasting a few minutes & 3 miles (i.e. Sheffield - Meadowhall) on a device a few minutes before that train departed, rather than a long distance journey booked before a certain time on the day before

 

[yorkie]

This seems to represent a settled conclusion; it does not explain why a conductor being able to check every passenger or it being normal practice to buy tickets onboard justifies not having a Penalty Fares scheme. Now clearly the latter is undesirable because it may lead to passengers thinking that they are supposed to buy tickets on the train; however, it does not explain the full motivation so it is quite hard to see what they did and did not take into account.

It seems pretty obvious to me, that if it is custom and practice to buy on board, then that's what the expectations are; it makes no sense to say you can buy on board 99% of the time but that 1% of the time when someone else is on the train, a huge penalty (akin to a fine) is applied.

One might suggest that it is easier to communicate to passengers that all trains and stations are Penalty Fares services unless it is impossible to buy a ticket before travel. The SRA could have (not unreasonably) come to that view after observing the confusion that Penalty Fares have caused.

That's not really practicable.

I raise it not because it is material to the point at hand, but because it is a good example of how rail has changed over the past twenty one years.

Sorry, you've lost me; what changes are you referring to?

However, the related point that ticketing has changed speaks to

The widespread use of journey planners may well have changed the SRA's view on the matter.

There's no requirement to use a journey planner, and even if you do, a walk-up ticket wouldn't just be valid on the services shown. Indeed it's not always clear-cut for Advance fares either. The same issues remain today.

Which could have made the situation clearer to customers than previously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "could have"; if done differently, maybe (but that's a whole new theoretical topic), but that didn't happen, and the situation is unchanged today.

Again it's hard to say what the SRA would have made of it (even if the views of many forum members is clear) given it no longer exists.

I see no evidence they'd hold a different view, given the fundamentals have not changed.

If anything, the wider world has become more customer focussed, while the railways have become less, in this particular regard.

I would ask that you explain why you think the SRA necessarily understood the issues and why the DfT does not.

The quotes from the SRA are well-reasoned and make perfect sense. The DfT consistently blunder in many areas, including railway ticketing matters; the PF "guidelines" which replaced the PF rules are woefully inadequate and do not address many of the scenarios.

The NRCoT still applies however the lack of reference in the "guidelines", which is down to DfT incompetence, leads to PFs being incorrectly issued, as well as - as in the example thread I posted at the start of this one - immorally issued.

It is important to separate policy decisions which we disagree with from general allegations of incompetence, and while I see the former, I am not satisifed as to the latter.

The DfT are well known for being incompetent; it's hardly an "allegation"

I agree that the situation with regards to Penalty Fares as it is is far from ideal, but I do not think that relying on the SRA as an authority is appropriate.

Well, the SRA were the appropriate authority twenty years ago, and there have been no fundamental changes since then.

I'm glad you agree with me that the current situation is far from ideal; please do bear in mind that the current situation is down to the DfT.

If the DfT were competent, the situation wouldn't be far from ideal.

And the increase of advance tickets in the current climate compared to 21 years ago when that document was written.

Unless the SRA could predict that in the future you will be able to buy advance tickets for journeys lasting a few minutes & 3 miles (i.e. Sheffield - Meadowhall) on a device a few minutes before that train departed, rather than a long distance journey booked before a certain time on the day before

True and if anything this strengthens the arguments against PFs for such tickets; in the past such tickets were typically (though not exclusively) only offered for an occasional journey, for which the passenger may otherwise be booking a flight, long distance coach (both with compulsory reservations) or organising a car hire. This is very different to short-hop journeys.

That said, I do not want this to be an argument against Advance fares for shorter distance journeys; such an argument belongs elsewhere, but such an argument is also spurious because the users of Advance fares on short distance trains may actually be using those trains as part of a longer journey, and in any case I don't think anyone is arguing against the issue of such fares for the end-to-end journeys on such trains.

 

[Krokodil]

the answer, or the best practical answer, is that a warning is given each time a ticket is sold.

Isn't one printed on the back?

Though I doubt that 90% of passengers even look

but such an argument is also spurious because the users of Advance fares on short distance trains may actually be using those trains as part of a longer journey, and in any case I don't think anyone is arguing against the issue of such fares for the end-to-end journeys on such trains.

You mean like Sheffield - Manchester Airport? The answer there is to only specify a train for the core journey, not for the short leg.

That's not what people seem to have in mind though, it's the Manchester-Burnage advances that people are on about.

 

[CyrusWuff]

(PF Warning) Isn't one printed on the back?

Not since the 2022 amendment to the PF Regs came into force - unless a redesigned version is now available, though not all TOCs used the relevant stock anyway.

An alternative was to issue a ticket with an origin of "Any (TOC) Station" and destination of "Penalty Warning", but I suspect those were also withdrawn when the 2022 amendment came into force.

 

[yorkie]

As an aside, there are cases where a PF can actually be less than the anytime single, mainly at Off-Peak times when a PF+Off-Peak is cheaper, it can be a case of be careful what you wish for.

I simply wish for this particular rule to be as it was in 2017, before the 2018 changes which were purportedly and ostensibly to benefit passengers, but actually were the opposite of what was claimed.

 

[RPI]

Why wouldn't it be relevant?

Why would it be? The SRA hasn't existed for nearly 20 years.

 

[yorkie]

Why would it be? The SRA hasn't existed for nearly 20 years.

And round circles we go; what's fundamentally changed in the past 20 years? (Please see post 65)

Also why the change from 2017 rules to 2018 rules, and how was that change consistent with the press releases made at the time?

 

[tomuk]

And round circles we go; what's fundamentally changed in the past 20 years? (Please see post 65)

Also why the change from 2017 rules to 2018 rules, and how was that change consistent with the press releases made at the time?

Nothing has changed in ticket retailing in the last 20 years? I don't remember ticket websites, mobile phone apps , smart cards or contactless payment being such an overwhelming part of the ecosystem back then. In the wider travel and retail world I seem to recall that a rather small airline called Ryanair launched its website in 2000 which had this very odd feature of selling airline tickets.

As regards the consistency with the press releases for the new rules aren't they just trumpeting the wider improvements to the PF process of a three stage appeal and the use of an independent panel?

 

[Watershed]

Nothing has changed in ticket retailing in the last 20 years? I don't remember ticket websites, mobile phone apps , smart cards or contactless payment being such an overwhelming part of the ecosystem back then. In the wider travel and retail world I seem to recall that a rather small airline called Ryanair launched its website in 2000 which had this very odd feature of selling airline tickets.

But again, what relevance do changes to the way that tickets are sold/issued have to whether or not PFs are issued for mere breach of a ticket condition/restriction?

An Off-Peak ticket is still an Off-Peak ticket, whatever it's called and however it's sold; there's no real explanation as to why the penalty for travelling on a train barred by the restriction code should have become much much harsher on 1 April 2018 (when the DfT's new 2018 Regulations replaced the SRA's 2002 Rules) than on the day before.

As regards the consistency with the press releases for the new rules aren't they just trumpeting the wider improvements to the PF process of a three stage appeal and the use of an independent panel?

The press releases purported that the changes improved passenger protections, when in fact they considerably worsened things overall. The only notable new protection is that prosecution is statute barred if you appeal, but TOCs routinely get away with prosecuting people in breach of this provision...

 

[Wallsendmag]

We’re in a time of flux changes are coming we can’t stick in 96 forever

 

[tomuk]

But again, what relevance do changes to the way that tickets are sold/issued have to whether or not PFs are issued for mere breach of a ticket condition/restriction?

Well why have any conditions or different ticket types if ignoring the restrictions has no consequence a breach is breach. Or on the other side of the coin remove all PFs, Bylaw 18 offences etc and just charge errant customers an excess.
Are the consequences not meant to be a deterrent

An Off-Peak ticket is still an Off-Peak ticket, whatever it's called and however it's sold; there's no real explanation as to why the penalty for travelling on a train barred by the restriction code should have become much much harsher on 1 April 2018 (when the DfT's new 2018 Regulations replaced the SRA's 2002 Rules) than on the day before.

My point was more directly responding to Yorkie that there had been no changes in the last 20 years. In terms of restricted tickets the opportunity to communicate the restrictions to the passenger have increased and the wider societal changes in travel retail and general retailing mean passenger are more savvy. They are getting a deal because they are excepting tighter restrictions.

 

[Starmill]

Well why have any conditions or different ticket types if ignoring the restrictions has no consequence a breach is breach.

There's never been no consequence.

wider societal changes in travel retail and general retailing mean passenger are more savvy

Perhaps you could put some evidence to that? Because to me it sounds like simply an excuse to offer worse service just because everyone else does it? I'd also reject that premise very firmly. There are plenty of quality operators out there who have designed their service in the opposite way, so that the price you see is always the price you get, such as Loganair.

 

[Vespa]

An advance fare can be useful if you're able to be rigid with your time keeping, if the cost difference is small you can easily buy an off peak fare and give yourself more options with the flexibility to go with it, LNWR to London is reasonably flexible and reasonable value if you don't mind taking a bit longer, Avanti is similar but a bit more pricey.

 

[Watershed]

We’re in a time of flux changes are coming we can’t stick in 96 forever

What relevance do these changes have? A lot of people seem to be bringing up the age or era of the old rules, but this all seems a complete red herring. The principle at stake is the same - it's about whether or not it's appropriate to issue PFs who have a ticket, but are in breach of ticket restrictions of some sort.

Well why have any conditions or different ticket types if ignoring the restrictions has no consequence a breach is breach. Or on the other side of the coin remove all PFs, Bylaw 18 offences etc and just charge errant customers an excess.

Clearly there's a line to be drawn somewhere. I don't think most people would consider it reasonable to issue a Penalty Fare for breach of a break of journey restriction, for example.

It's also not as if the alternative to a Penalty Fare is no consequences at all, as your first sentence here suggests. Having to pay the excess to a more expensive fare could cost quite a lot, depending on the circumstances.

Are the consequences not meant to be a deterrent

Why should there need to be a deterrent at all? Penalty Fares were originally intended to effectively decriminalise most fares offences; there was never a suggestion that they would be intended as any sort of deterrent against making a mistake.

My point was more directly responding to Yorkie that there had been no changes in the last 20 years. In terms of restricted tickets the opportunity to communicate the restrictions to the passenger have increased

Perhaps so, but there are now far more ticket types and different sets of restrictions. The industry still does a very poor job overall of telling people what they can and can't do with their ticket. So that opportunity has largely gone to waste.

and the wider societal changes in travel retail and general retailing mean passenger are more savvy. They are getting a deal because they are excepting tighter restrictions.

I'm not at all convinced that the average person knows more about rail fares now than in the past. Do you have any evidence for this being the case?

With so many purchases being made online or through apps nowadays, lots of people just see the price for a particular itinerary and pay that; they don't necessarily appreciate (because it isn't exactly made clear) what they can do with their ticket once they've bought it.

On the topic of "accepting" tighter restrictions, do you really think that someone who buys a "10p price war" ticket has deliberately decided they want to lose half or more of their choice of trains? It seems much more likely that they just chose the default ticket that came up wherever they bought their ticket, even if this was just 10p cheaper than a much more flexible Any Permitted ticket. The TOCs know this and have taken advantage of people's naïvety, yet then have the cheek to penalise people for travelling on the wrong TOC...

Similarly with Advance tickets for very short journeys with high frequencies. We have seen countless cases of people buying these and then being issued with PFs (or worse) for not realising these tie you to a specific train - for a 5/10 minute journey for instance.

 

[yorkie]

Nothing has changed in ticket retailing in the last 20 years? I don't remember ticket websites, mobile phone apps , smart cards or contactless payment being such an overwhelming part of the ecosystem back then.

I refer you to post #65 above.

In the wider travel and retail world I seem to recall that a rather small airline called Ryanair launched its website in 2000 which had this very odd feature of selling airline tickets.

What's that got to do with Penalty Fares?

In particular, I refer you to the penultimate paragraph in post 65.

As regards the consistency with the press releases for the new rules aren't they just trumpeting the wider improvements to the PF process of a three stage appeal and the use of an independent panel?

How are the following quotes in any way consistent with the changes that were made from the rules made between 2017 and 2018...

New rules coming into force today (6 April 2018) will offer a greater level of protection for rail passengers issued with a penalty fare, where they make an honest mistake...

The process will also give greater consideration to circumstances of how and why the penalty was issued, to ensure people are not unfairly penalised.

Note also that the press release stated circumstances in which a PF can be issued:

A penalty fare can be issued where an individual travels without a valid ticket, or is unable to produce a railcard on a discounted ticket, stays on the train beyond the destination they have paid for or travels in the wrong class.

Why do you think they didn't also state "and, from now on, for travel on the wrong train on an Advance ticket"?

We’re in a time of flux changes are coming we can’t stick in 96 forever

Indeed the world has moved on to a more customer-focussed attitude... except the rail industry, which has gone backwards!

Well why have any conditions or different ticket types if ignoring the restrictions has no consequence a breach is breach.

No concequence? Where are you getting this from? Is this something else you've made up

Or on the other side of the coin remove all PFs, Bylaw 18 offences etc and just charge errant customers an excess.

If you wish to make proposals, please use the Speculative Discussion section.

Are the consequences not meant to be a deterrent

Is new fare, not taking into account the original sum paid, not a deterrent?

My point was more directly responding to Yorkie that there had been no changes in the last 20 years.

Rather than claim I said something, you need to quote me. Can you quote exactly what I've said please.

In terms of restricted tickets the opportunity to communicate the restrictions to the passenger have increased

We're not in your fantasy world. Here in the real world, the number of passengers who are using these Advance fares, and it not being made clear to them what the restrictions and potential penalties are, is what has actually increased.

and the wider societal changes in travel retail and general retailing mean passenger are more savvy.

Do you have any experience or evidence of this?

Again I refer you to the penultimate paragraph of post #65, which - when combined with the dumbed down interface of Trainline-powered (and perhaps other) websites - mean that actually many more people now are obtaining Advance tickets for short hop journeys, often unaware of the issues discussed in this thread - than ever before.

They are getting a deal because they are excepting tighter restrictions.

And...?

Also, where is it made clear what the potential consequences are in the ticket buying process?

 

[tomuk]

I refer you to post #65 above.

Refer to what in post 65#? This sort of response is meaningless.

What's that got to do with Penalty Fares?

That point is peoples expectations, experience and skills have changed when buying travel products, and many other products, has changed. If you were the regulator 15 or 20 years ago you may have decided that consumers may find the new methods of buying and types tickets confusing as they are new and novel so more leniency in the rules is required. Fast forward to today where peoples experience of buying that way is the norm, as well as similar changes in wider markets, mean that the tolerance for the novel is no longer required.

In particular, I refer you to the penultimate paragraph in post 65.

If you mean the proliferation Advances for short journeys. I refer you to my previous responses. I don't think Advances or TOC specific tickets are appropriate for shorter journeys and should be withdrawn.

How are the following quotes in any way consistent with the changes that were made from the rules made between 2017 and 2018...

The press releases don't have to be consistent with the specific change from the 2017 rules the PR is trailing the revised appeals process as a significant benefit.
Are these 2017 rules the internal guidance your referred to earlier? If so are they even classed as the rules?

Note also that the press release stated circumstances in which a PF can be issued:

Why do you think they didn't also state "and, from now on, for travel on the wrong train on an Advance ticket"?

Why do they need to? The change probably wasn't seen as significant. If you're on the wrong train with an advance you don't have a valid ticket it is quite simple. Or are you suggesting ulterior motives from the duplicitous, incompetent morally bankrupt TOC and DfT to paraphrase your earlier bracketing?

Indeed the world has moved on to a more customer-focussed attitude... except the rail industry, which has gone backwards!

You use this phrase customer focussed what do you mean by it? It can mean many things to many people.

If you wish to make proposals, please use the Speculative Discussion section.

If a new thread was to be started would it not be in this section as it pertains to Fares Policy? Like this thread?

No concequence? Where are you getting this from? Is this something else you've made up

Is new fare, not taking into account the original sum paid, not a deterrent?

I thought you were suggesting an excess would be appropriate based on your opening words of the thread where you compared the traditional position for off peak tickets to the situation for advances. If you were only ever at worst needed to pay an excess for using the wrong train it would be possible to make some savings depending on the level of ticket checks on the route concerned. Would the option of an excess be removed for repeat offenders?

Rather than claim I said something, you need to quote me. Can you quote exactly what I've said please.

It is in your exchange with bcarmicle regards the 20 years since the SRA made the rules.

Have any of the fundamentals which I quoted changed?

..given the fundamentals have not changed.

As he and I suggest there has been quite a change in the landscape of ticket retailing in the last 20 years. Or by fundamentals do you mean something else?

Do you have any experience or evidence of this?

Consumer being more savvy? Do you have any experience or evidence of the opposite? I see online ordering and apps for everything, train tickets, concert tickets, food, etc etc. Loyalty Cards, Comparison sites, Automatic discount voucher sites, review sites like trustpilot ,consumer advice sites, YouTube, TikTok videos. We have Martin Lewis with his website, own tv show and appearances elsewhere promoting various methods of buying things that would be unheard of 20 years ago and the hoops necessary to jump through to get a some of the deals including split tickets of all things. These tips and tricks being promoted in more traditional media too.

We're not in your fantasy world. Here in the real world, the number of passengers who are using these Advance fares, and it not being made clear to them what the restrictions and potential penalties are, is what has actually increased. Again I refer you to the penultimate paragraph of post #65, which - when combined with the dumbed down interface of Trainline-powered (and perhaps other) websites - mean that actually many more people now are obtaining Advance tickets for short hop journeys, often unaware of the issues discussed in this thread - than ever before.


Also, where is it made clear what the potential consequences are in the ticket buying process?

I refer you to my previous responses regarding fare types issued for short distance fares. I don't support them.

As regards passengers being made aware of the ticket restrictions. Firstly in terms of the validity of earlier rules or SRA decisions made 20 years ago the capabilities and use of websites and apps has grown substantially since then so the ability to make them clear to passengers has grown.

As regards current sites one would expect that making restrictions clear is pretty fundamental requirement and should be easy with current technology. Maybe some sites are better than others.

I tried the forum ticket site for example, for a return journey tomorrow into Manchester. The times specified were around the end of the morning peak and start of the evening one. The highlighted cheapest fare was on two trains timed after 9.30 and after 18.30. I clicked on the highlighted cheapest fares as I'm just desperate for a bargain. After selecting them there is no detail about the ticket type unless I click on the dropdown arrow I am then shown that the actual ticket are two off peak returns, a split.
One

Not valid for travel via (changing trains or passing through) Wolverhampton. Restriction AW applies

the other

TfW Rail Only. Restriction AW applies

If you then click on the details link below the cryptic AW code it then pops up a modal. Explaining that this is an off peak ticket and only valid on certain trains. But not any specific information. It then talks of break of journey may be restricted but doesn't explain what that is. It then has a long bit about refunds and then right at the bottom it has sections for morning and evening travel and details that the ticket isn't valid before 9.30 and not for departure between 16.00 and 18.29.

So that's two clicks required and the pertinent information is right at the bottom of the modal after some pretty generic unimportant information. Would the detail of the refund process for example not be more applicable elsewhere?

Now the tickets offered are a split and of course the trains travelled on need to stop at the appropriate station(s). Again I can't see this information unless I click on a dropdown next to a heading titled "Important Information". This section proudly states that "Your tickets may be valid on other trains." Which of course they are but not on the peak trains departing prior to those trains chosen. i.e. the more expensive ones.

If your selling a split then surely any time restrictions and required station stops should be front and central. Maybe the site was designed by people more interested in breaks of journey and the flexibility of walk up fares.

I did the same on trainline and the design paradigm is very different to say the least. The site automatically chose the off peak trains. It also unnecessarily showed a selection of Advances which is pointless as the Off Peak return is cheaper than the available singles.

However in its favour the list of return tickets you can choose from as well as describing the ticket type 'off peak trains only etc. It does list the departures time each ticket is valid on clearly showing that if one were to use the peak departures you need to choose the Anytime ticket.

Also on the right below the Quick Buy and Continue buttons there is a summary of the chosen journey including that is clearly and off peak ticket with restrictions and a Ticket Validity link that opens a page clearly setting out the time restrictions. This is also the first time the AW code appears. Another interesting feature here is a link to a popup saying I can travel to Victoria, Deansgate and Oxford Road as well as Piccadilly on this ticket.

This of course just details what you get during the selection phase and doesn't account for any information provided during checkout or on the tickets and accompanying itinerary provided.

Getting back to the point are these usability requirements for the sites and apps not set and monitored by industry bodies and regulators? Are there industry mechanisms to feed back problems with repeatedly errant sites\apps to the owners? I see yesterday the ORR issued a letter to companies requesting that they move to improve the details of messages sent to customer vis-a-vis their refund\rebooking\acceptance rights when receiving automated updates that their pre booked journeys are cancelled or disrupted.

Does the associated Smarter Information, Smarter Journeys industry initiative include improved ticket restrictions in websites/ apps. Anyhow my point being should the sales process be not be improved rather than slackening the rules around revue enforcement.?

 

[35B]

Just an observation in this SRA good, DfT bad discussion - when SRA was dissolved, it's functions and people were pulled into DfT.

 

[yorkie]

Just an observation in this SRA good, DfT bad discussion - when SRA was dissolved, it's functions and people were pulled into DfT.

Are the people who drafted the 2002 rules, which were well thought out, the same people as who made the negative changes in 2018 and drafted the awful "guidance" document? I would be very surprised if so!

 

[35B]

Are the people who drafted the 2002 rules, which were well thought out, the same people as who made the negative changes in 2018 and drafted the awful "guidance" document? I would be very surprised if so!

I don't know - and if so, nor do I know what instructions they were working under at each time. None of which alters my view that a binary SRA good/DafT bad view is deeply misleading.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't know - and if so, nor do I know what instructions they were working under at each time. None of which alters my view that a binary SRA good/DafT bad view is deeply misleading.

I think that it's more "2002 good, 2018 bad"

 

[fandroid]

My experience of talking to other irregular buyers of rail tickets, mostly far less experienced in train travel than I am, is that they rely very much on Trainline (it's always Trainline!) selling them the right product. They might be reasonably knowledgeable about one line and one journey, but are absolute innocents abroad when going beyond that. I believe that the increase in online purchase has made them think that ticket purchase is very simple, whereas before they would have been advised by a ticket office about any complications. To summarise, I don't believe that increased availability of tickets via apps has increased knowledge to any degree at all.

The current bizarre level of complexity and local differences that now prevail means that the total sum of passenger understanding has gone down rather than gone up.

 

[Krokodil]

My experience of talking to other irregular buyers of rail tickets, mostly far less experienced in train travel than I am, is that they rely very much on Trainline (it's always Trainline!) selling them the right product. They might be reasonably knowledgeable about one line and one journey, but are absolute innocents abroad when going beyond that. I believe that the increase in online purchase has made them think that ticket purchase is very simple, whereas before they would have been advised by a ticket office about any complications. To summarise, I don't believe that increased availability of tickets via apps has increased knowledge to any degree at all.

The current bizarre level of complexity and local differences that now prevail means that the total sum of passenger understanding has gone down rather than gone up.

The number of people who come a cropper because they trusted Trainline is ridiculous. They select the "Open Return" tab, their email includes the words "open return", but they weren't paying attention to the list of tickets amd selected the cheapest one under the clear heading "return same day".

 

[Adam Williams]

After selecting them there is no detail about the ticket type unless I click on the dropdown arrow I am then shown that the actual ticket are two off peak returns, a split.

The ticket type is clearly indicated in the tickets table on the Ticket Information page. The list of tickets is expanded by default when the page is first opened. There's no need to expand this list when you first visit that page.

The split points could be made more apparent, but it's a fine balance to try and strike between overwhelming the user with information, presenting an interface to allow them to specify preferences (for e.g. seat reservations and add-ons) and summarising the dates and times they've already picked. As much as we might dislike it here, other "simpler" user interfaces which present less useful information to the customer are likely to be perceived as easier to use and more user-friendly .. even if they are over-simplifying things.

If your selling a split then surely any time restrictions and required station stops should be front and central. Maybe the site was designed by people more interested in breaks of journey and the flexibility of walk up fares.

It's impossible to present the full details of restriction codes for each and every individual single ticket in a way that is "front and central". Restriction information, as provided by the rail industry, is just a bunch of extensive text that retailers are given. Almost all retailers show it in some sort of dialog box because there's so much detail and the summaries of the restriction code often bear no real resemblance to the full restriction details (which themselves often bear no real resemblance to the actual electronic restrictions data that journey planners use to plan journeys!). The restrictions may well also be further restricted by applied discounts.

The rail industry is fairly clear about wanting customers to use journey planners to pick trains and plan their journey and the vast majority of customers will travel according to the journey plan they select at the time of booking which I think is the only feasible way for most folks to figure out the trains they can take.

Does the associated Smarter Information, Smarter Journeys industry initiative include improved ticket restrictions in websites/ apps. Anyhow my point being should the sales process be not be improved rather than slackening the rules around revue enforcement.?

I get reasonably tired of people (usually TOC staff) complaining it's the fault of retailers that passengers don't fully understand the validity of their tickets. It's RDG that accredits these booking interfaces and all TOCs have input into the process of setting the standards for retailers to follow in this area.

What there isn't enough oversight of is how TOCs maintain their fares data and how they treat customers when there are problems. Some TOCs are really receptive to reports of problems from retailers, and some don't even bother to read emails. Some retailers maintain their fares data properly, and some screw it up for the best part of a year, issue penalty fares illegally and incorrectly charge tens-hundreds of customers who try to travel in accordance with the restriction data the TOC is responsible for. Some TOCs make their ticket restrictions so confusing and inconsistent that passengers really don't stand a chance trying to plan a journey themselves.

 

[Wallsendmag]

It's RDG that accredits these booking interfaces .

Not always

 

[Adam Williams]

Not always

RDG may not always conduct but they certainly specify the delegated accreditation process for TIS suppliers accrediting their API clients, too.

 

[fandroid]

I think most customers are simply not expecting the bizarre range of complexity that confronts them when planning a rail journey. And in not expecting it, they don't perceive that it's there. I think that's not their fault either, because the "railway" has created this dogs breakfast of a system that's become a fascinating study subject for the likes of us nerds. The "railway" should take responsibility for sorting it out and not punish Joe Public for being mystified by it.

 

[Adam Williams]

I think most customers are simply not expecting the bizarre range of complexity that confronts them when planning a rail journey. And in not expecting it, they don't perceive that it's there. I think that's not their fault either, because the "railway" has created this dogs breakfast of a system that's become a fascinating study subject for the likes of us nerds. The "railway" should take responsibility for sorting it out and not punish Joe Public for being mystified by it.

Completely agree with this take.

It's a byzantine system. Advance tickets are valid on the booked train, unless you've bought one of GA's "Advance Offer Single" tickets and then it might actually be valid on any train on a specific day. Or, maybe you have an "Early Bird Discount Advance Single" from Heathrow Express, which also isn't tied to a booked train. Anyone want to guess what conditions apply to a "LNER Flat Fare Single 1st" ticket? Can you break your journey on these tickets? What about refund rights?

Which trains are you allowed to travel on with an "& Connections" advance ticket? Does this depend on the timetable's idea of reservability, or the reservation system's idea of reservability? What do you do when the restriction code text is contradictory or ambiguous?

This stuff is all really difficult, and it's completely unreasonable to expect passengers to be able to comprehend it all and get it right consistently.

Earlier on in the thread there was a discussion on what has happened in the last 20 years: TOCs have introduced a multitude of additional new ticket types, a multitude of new restriction codes, discount schemes with their own restrictions.