Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 12,288
Does that / has that ever actually happen(ed)?Really I'm convinced I once bought an advance to reading which said I could go to reading west as well
Does that / has that ever actually happen(ed)?Really I'm convinced I once bought an advance to reading which said I could go to reading west as well
Yes. I have had tickets issued to "Reading/Reading West". This has been the case since the railway started to move away from issuing tickets to "xxxx stations" and increasingly they now use groups of specifically named stations. That is already unwieldy in the case of Manchester and Liverpool (4 stations apiece), and would be utterly ridiculous if some of the suggestions in this thread were taken forward.Does that / has that ever actually happen(ed)?
Settle and Giggleswick
Walton and Rice Lane
Indeed both are documented as being interavailable. In the case of the former, it applies only to tickets issued to Settle, and not vice versa.I'm fairly sure those are already inter-available formally.
While I admit this is isn't an advance but it shows what I meanDoes that / has that ever actually happen(ed)?
Yes, for Monkhill and Tanshelf, but not Baghill.Is there a "Pontefract Stations" group (and if so are all three stations included)? I can't recall ever seeing a ticket issued to "Pontefract Stations".
They aren't officially grouped, however I am sure they would be treated as interchangable in practice.Are the two St Budeaux stations "grouped"? Much like Rice Lane/Walton there's probably a case for fully merging them into one station... in which case both pairs would qualify for the recent thread about stations with roads through them.
Surprised Baghill is excluded really- not an issue for local journeys, but it means someone with a longer distance ticket to Baghill who misses a connection at Sheffield won't have the option of travelling via Wakefield to reach Tanshelf instead.Yes, for Monkhill and Tanshelf, but not Baghill.
There's already an easement that allows tickets to one to be used to the other, so it would make sense to just go ahead and formalise it by making them a station group.Cambridge, Cambridge North & Cambridge South when it opens (I think you can get Cambridge or Cambridge North tickets but no group exists AFAIK
Surprised me too... but you're not travelling directly to an alternative station, you'd have to change, so that would become an issue.Surprised Baghill is excluded really- not an issue for local journeys, but it means someone with a longer distance ticket to Baghill who misses a connection at Sheffield won't have the option of travelling via Wakefield to reach Tanshelf instead.
Surely the infrequent service makes it more of an issue, not less. If the connection missed at Sheffield was the last northbound service of the day via the Dearne Valley, the "least-worst" option to get a passenger to Pontefract would be to allow them to board a service to either of the Wakefield stations where the other Pontefract stations can be reached with one change? If "Pontefract Stations" included Baghill too, where's the problem?Surprised me too... but you're not travelling directly to an alternative station, you'd have to change, so that would become an issue.
Can you still catch a train to/from Baghill? The remains of the Dearne Valley Line had become a rail replacement service, last I heard. If not, even less of an issue than it was with the infrequent service.
Northern Conductors would almost certainly be happy to give special permission to travel to Pontefract Monkhill if the intended service to Pontefract Baghill were disrupted, or a delay on a connecting service resulted in it being missed.Surely the infrequent service makes it more of an issue, not less. If the connection missed at Sheffield was the last northbound service of the day via the Dearne Valley, the "least-worst" option to get a passenger to Pontefract would be to allow them to board a service to either of the Wakefield stations where the other Pontefract stations can be reached with one change? If "Pontefract Stations" included Baghill too, where's the problem?
I don't see how the number of changes needed is relevant, especially for a station with such a limited service.
The services are currently running as trains, or were a week or so ago. Though even if they were buses my point still stands- a ticket to Baghill should automatically be valid to Monkhill or Tanshelf in the event of a missed connection. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for Baghill to be excluded from the "group". I can't see any way such a change could be abused, for example.
Is that the case? An Anytime Day Single from Bristol Temple Meads to Exeter Central is £35.40. As is an Anytime Day Single from Bristol Temple Meads to Exeter St. Davids. Same SDS fare also (in this case = £20.40) if travelling from Plymouth to either Exeter Central or Exeter St. Davids or Exeter St. Thomas.What about Exeter St. David's/Central? If you buy a ticket to Exeter from Bristol or Plymouth you get St. Davids. I assume you can ask for Central and there will an additional fare.
OK thanks. Moving up country, I think Hyde North/Flowery Field has come up before.Is that the case? An Anytime Day Single from Bristol Temple Meads to Exeter Central is £35.40. As is an Anytime Day Single from Bristol Temple Meads to Exeter St. Davids. Same SDS fare also (in this case = £20.40) if travelling from Plymouth to either Exeter Central or Exeter St. Davids or Exeter St. Thomas.
Presume there's fare clustering at play here, so, in the absence of an Exeter station group, the key thing will be to take care to select the most appropriate Exeter station as your destination when purchasing tickets.
What would that achieve? They are two adjacent stations on the same line.Balham and Wandsworth Common?
What would that achieve? They are two adjacent stations on the same line.
Station groups can be on the same line, but there would be no point in creating a group for next to no benefit. With these stations both being in Greater London the benefit is minimal as most users (probably the vast majority) will be using contactless or Oyster, and station groups are really a function of paper tickets. Of those using paper tickets, many will be using travelcards so the usefulness of a station group for these stations would be minimal.Can station groups not be on the same line? They're pretty close together. In fact I'd say Wandsworth Common was more of a "West Balham" or "Upper Toting" if anything - but that's another story. But the point is many who want Balham will wander over to the Common anyway, and those specifically wanting the Common first may wander over to Balham for the Underground.
Is there an issue with simply buying the ticket to the further of the two? How many flexible tickets to Balham or Wandsworth Common wouldn't offer break of journey rights? You can't do that in most of the cases people are suggesting because they're on different lines.Can station groups not be on the same line? They're pretty close together. In fact I'd say Wandsworth Common was more of a "West Balham" or "Upper Toting" if anything - but that's another story. But the point is many who want Balham will wander over to the Common anyway, and those specifically wanting the Common first may wander over to Balham for the Underground.
If you were using a flexible ticket which prohibited break of journey, such as a Llanelli to Bristol Temple Meads return, you wouldn't be permitted to do this. In practice it would probably be allowed, but informally, and not as an entitlement.Although tickets are issued to Bristol Temple Meads or Bristol Parkway rather than 'Bristol Stations' I've had no problem arriving at one and departing from the other on a return ticket or going from Newport - Temple Meads or vice versa via Parkway.
What benefits would making a station group bring me?
The Burnley example is 'informally' in place. I've been travelling to Burnley and alternated between stations depending on the time. Never once has it been an issue. Usually from Manchester Rd, they will check that we don't need one of the intermediate stops.The one I would do is Burnley Manchester Road / Central.
According to the new Merseyrail route diagrams, it will be a member of Liverpool Stations.
I'm fairly sure those are already inter-available formally.
Yes. The conductors will always accept it, would be too ridiculous to try to do anything else of course. The only issue would be if there were RPIs at Burnley Manchester Road one day and didn't want you to ask the conductor if you could use your ticket from Burnley Central. In that incredibly unlikely circumstance you'd have no choice but to pay for a single to Accrington (or Rose Grove if your train calls there) to get past them. If a ticket to Brierfield is the same price I usually use that, because then you often do have the actual right to go via Burnley Manchester Road using the walking link. Bananas.The Burnley example is 'informally' in place. I've been travelling to Burnley and alternated between stations depending on the time. Never once has it been an issue. Usually from Manchester Rd, they will check that we don't need one of the intermediate stops.
Just as it should be.
Just thought I'd resurrect this by saying that there should be a Glasgow station group that includes all of Glasgow Central, Glasgow Queen Street, Argyle Street, High Street, Anderston and Charing Cross.
Like what would happen if someone boarded the Lanark-Glasgow service at Cambuslang thinking it was the Argyle Street train (Dalmuir one) that comes shortly behind? Would the ticket from Cambuslang to Argyle Street be accepted at Central High Level's barriers? Argyle Street and Glasgow Central are just 560 metres apart.
That's why I think those 6 stations in the city centre should all be included under one station group. They are so close together.