"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal evidence
is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be having
some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being a
peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about
ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are
doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.

The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are
changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak".
There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't
valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak" one
is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have been
mapped onto the new-fangled-names.

[1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means
different things on different routes

Perhaps a pertinent question. Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
train company or a seller in it's own right?

In message , at 23:50:07 on
Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Fred remarked:
Perhaps a pertinent question. Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
train company or a seller in it's own right?

Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a
ToC, and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought
the ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like
a 9% commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement
of some kind.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
22:05:07 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, mert1639
remarked:
, at It
depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion or
not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in the
BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid,
then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or
sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not* be
given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry
any form of ID.

aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a
quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers
that they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy
to wait as long as that takes.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
11:25:19 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Owain
remarked:
Fred wrote:
Perhaps a pertinent question. Is the vendor of the ticket an agent
of the train company or a seller in it's own right?

Possibly both, if the journey involves travel on several different
operators' trains.

If one ticket allows travel on a number of trains, then only *one* of
the train operators will have set the fare, so I don't think it can ever
be a combination like that. The only other possibility is that all
tickets are sold by vendors "on behalf of ATOC" who is then acting as an
agent for the people running the trains.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
00:50:06 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Owain
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak
ticket (and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later
turns out to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to
do that. Whose "fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?

The information I have seen - and this may only apply to ScotRail - is
that although the names of the tickets have changed, the ticket codes
(eg SOR for Standard Open Return) and the eligible times have not
generally changed.

The ticket names are changing. SOR becomes "Anytime".

Eligible times are changing - for example the fares on the Midland
Mainline that used to be called "Savers" are to be called "Super
Off-Peak" and a whole hour has been trimmed off each end of their
validity during the day (eg last departure from London now 14.55 not 15.55)

It's not that simple (as is usually the case)...The "new" Super Off-Peak
on EMT has a ticket type code of SSS/SSR (i.e. SuperSaver), whereas the
Off-Peak takes SVS/SVR (i.e. Saver).

Staff guidelines are as follows:

Where the date of travel is BEFORE the 7th of September, the CURRENT
terms and conditions apply, regardless of the printed ticket name.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September, the
CURRENT terms and conditions apply IF the ticket was PURCHASED BEFORE
10th August.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September, the NEW
terms and conditions apply IF the ticket was PURCHASED ON OR AFTER 10th
August.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September AND the
date of PURCHASE is UNKNOWN or IN DOUBT, staff SHOULD apply the most
generous interpretation of old and/or new terms and conditions.

Cheers,

Barry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
22:05:07 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, mert1639
remarked:
, at
It
depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion
or
not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in
the
BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid,
then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or
sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not*
be
given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry
any form of ID.

aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a
quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers that
they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy to
wait as long as that takes.

I hope that they get sued in that case. It's hardly non-cooperation not to
have something you aren't obliged to have.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 23:50:07 on
Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Fred remarked:
Perhaps a pertinent question. Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
train company or a seller in it's own right?

Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a ToC,
and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought the
ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like a 9%
commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement of some
kind.

If as you say they're an agent then surely the ticket has been effectively
purchased from the train company. How can the train company then say it's
invalid?

In message , at
22:30:10 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, mert1639
remarked:
aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a
quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers that
they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy to
wait as long as that takes.

I hope that they get sued in that case. It's hardly non-cooperation not to
have something you aren't obliged to have.

They are obliged to reveal their identity - a "formal ID" is merely a
quicker way to do it.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:50:06 on
Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Fred remarked:
Perhaps a pertinent question. Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
train company or a seller in it's own right?

Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a ToC,
and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought the
ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like a 9%
commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement of some
kind.

If as you say they're an agent then surely the ticket has been effectively
purchased from the train company. How can the train company then say it's
invalid?

Poor call centre training, perhaps, or maybe they actually believe in
their own minds that they aren't liable.
--
Roland Perry