"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
d wrote in
:

Fine, but HEX should not display signs which imply that their
tickets are the only ones which are valid on the route and that,
despite advance information to the contrary, travelcards or other
London Underground tickets are not valid. If such signs are normally
displayed, they should be covered or turned off during times when LT
tickets are valid.

Why not? It's up to TfL to tell its customers that they can use HEx,
not for HEx to tell everyone they can buy cheaper tickets from TfL. I
thought that would be obvious.

I can understand HEx not publicising the fact that there are cheaper fares
available, although I'd have thought that there might be similar rules to
the "Other listings magazines are available" caption that you often get on
BBC trailers about Radio Times.

Yes, if HEx was publicly-owned like the BBC. Just like HMV don't have to
say "It's cheaper at Virgin Megastores", HEx don't have to say "You can use
our service for less - just go buy a TfL ticket and take advantage of us
doing a favour for the travelling public".

However displaying posters/signs that contradict information that TfL has
provided is very different. That's not just witholding information. It's
lying. It leaves passengers wondering who to believe: TfL who say that
their tickets are being accepted on HEx trains or HEx who say that travel
cards are not being accepted.

They're not lying. They have those signs anyway. And I doubt they can be
held legally responsible for the content of those signs, especially when HEx
are doing TfL and the public a massive favour.

d wrote in
:

However displaying posters/signs that contradict information that
TfL has provided is very different. That's not just witholding
information. It's lying. It leaves passengers wondering who to
believe: TfL who say that their tickets are being accepted on HEx
trains or HEx who say that travel cards are not being accepted.

They're not lying. They have those signs anyway. And I doubt they
can be held legally responsible for the content of those signs,
especially when HEx are doing TfL and the public a massive favour.

Surely it is unlawful for a company to post signs which say "we do not
accept our competitor's tickets" when that is not actually the case and when
the competitor has negotiated an agreement that their tickets *will* be
affected. By displaying those signs, they are making passengers think that
they have no option but to buy a more expensive ticket, when passengers *do*
have the option of buying a cheaper ticket.

Given that the signs are normally displayed and quite correctly say that
travelcards are not normally accepted, it's probably a sin of omission: they
have forgotten to cover them up during the temporary period that travelcards
are accepted. But by failing to remove those signs, they are making people
pay extra for something that they don't need to and thus laying themselves
open to accusations (in this thread) of ripping off passengers.s

Graeme Wall wrote in
:

All right. If you want to split hairs, maybe I should have said "the
TOC which runs the HEx service".

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.

It is not splitting hairs, it is making the point that sounding off
about TOCs and public service obligations is irrelevant in this case.
HEX has no public service obligations, it is a privately owned
business that can do what it legally likes. If you don't like it,
don't use it.

OK. So the company that runs the HEx is different to all other train
companies in that it's not a TOC? Fair enough. I didn't know that - I've
learned something. But if I'm confused, I can imagine most other lay people
will be as well. I had assumed (always dangerous, I know) that all companies
that ran trains on Network Rail tracks (at least as far as the tunnel into
Heathrow!) and used Network Rail stations were classed as TOCs and had
obligations to pool fares etc. Evidently not.

What a mess our rail system has become: some stations owned/operated by
TOCs, some owned by Network Rail; some services operated by TOCs, some
operated by companies that are not TOCs. Maybe I'm biassed because I can
remember a time when the railways were operated as a single entity with
joined-up thinking!

"Graeme Wall" wrote

HEX is not a TOC

The NRT seems quite content to describe HEx (and Hull Trains and West Coast
Railway Company for that matter) as a Train Operating Company. Unlike the
franchised TOCs they have no Public Service Obligation responsibilities, but
that doesn't stop them being a tOC.

peter

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote in
:

All right. If you want to split hairs, maybe I should have said "the
TOC which runs the HEx service".

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.

It is not splitting hairs, it is making the point that sounding off
about TOCs and public service obligations is irrelevant in this case.
HEX has no public service obligations, it is a privately owned
business that can do what it legally likes. If you don't like it,
don't use it.

OK. So the company that runs the HEx is different to all other train
companies in that it's not a TOC? Fair enough. I didn't know that - I've
learned something. But if I'm confused, I can imagine most other lay
people will be as well. I had assumed (always dangerous, I know) that all
companies that ran trains on Network Rail tracks (at least as far as the
tunnel into Heathrow!) and used Network Rail stations were classed as TOCs
and had obligations to pool fares etc. Evidently not.

What a mess our rail system has become: some stations owned/operated by
TOCs, some owned by Network Rail; some services operated by TOCs, some
operated by companies that are not TOCs. Maybe I'm biassed because I can
remember a time when the railways were operated as a single entity with
joined-up thinking!

The HEx is essentially a shuttle service. I don't think it's really
comparable to, say, Silverlink or First Great Western...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
d wrote in
:

However displaying posters/signs that contradict information that
TfL has provided is very different. That's not just witholding
information. It's lying. It leaves passengers wondering who to
believe: TfL who say that their tickets are being accepted on HEx
trains or HEx who say that travel cards are not being accepted.

They're not lying. They have those signs anyway. And I doubt they
can be held legally responsible for the content of those signs,
especially when HEx are doing TfL and the public a massive favour.

Surely it is unlawful for a company to post signs which say "we do not
accept our competitor's tickets" when that is not actually the case and
when the competitor has negotiated an agreement that their tickets *will*
be affected. By displaying those signs, they are making passengers think
that they have no option but to buy a more expensive ticket, when
passengers *do* have the option of buying a cheaper ticket.

I think the only problems would arise should a HEx ticket inspector give a
TfL travelcard holder a penalty fine, or forced them to buy a HEx ticket.
Up until then, they're not breaking any laws. Technically speaking, they
only buy the TfL ticket if they intended to travel by underground. If you
intended to travel by HEx all along, you should (morally, ethically,
whatever) buy a HEx ticket. Taking advantage of others doing favours for
people isn't exactly nice, but I'm sure you don't have a problem with that


Given that the signs are normally displayed and quite correctly say that
travelcards are not normally accepted, it's probably a sin of omission:
they have forgotten to cover them up during the temporary period that
travelcards are accepted. But by failing to remove those signs, they are
making people pay extra for something that they don't need to and thus
laying themselves open to accusations (in this thread) of ripping off
passengers.s

No, as the signs are information signs only. The actual people on the
service (ie the guy with the ticket machine on the train) can not legally
challenge TfL travel card holders.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:38:08 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Actually, I don't think HEx receives any subsidy from the tax payer -
its construction and running costs were/are entirely funded by BAA, as
it's an "open access" operator.

It might do, indirectly. It uses Network Rail tracks on the GWML, but
doesn't have to pay the full maintenance costs for this track -
Network Rail does, and *is* subsidised by the taxpayer. I suppose it
would depend on whether the track access charges paid by HEx, FGW,
etc, for accessing this stretch of track are enough to cover all its
maintenance costs.

Graeme Wall wrote:

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.


So you're saying that HEX is a company that operates trains, but it's
not a train operating company...?

wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.

So you're saying that HEX is a company that operates trains, but it's
not a train operating company...?

It is a train operating company (a company that runs additional trains on
the national network). It is not a Train Operating Company (a company that
has bought the franchise to operate a specified set of services within a
geographical area, according to DfT minimum service requirements), the
successors to the BR Train Operating Units.

In message
"Martin Underwood" wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote in :

All right. If you want to split hairs, maybe I should have said "the
TOC which runs the HEx service".

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX for
the BAA.

It is not splitting hairs, it is making the point that sounding off about
TOCs and public service obligations is irrelevant in this case. HEX has
no public service obligations, it is a privately owned business that can
do what it legally likes. If you don't like it, don't use it.

OK. So the company that runs the HEx is different to all other train
companies in that it's not a TOC?

Yup. Though not /all/ other train companies are TOCs, I believe (and I sit to
be corrected) that Hull Trains isn't either.

Fair enough. I didn't know that - I've learned something. But if I'm
confused, I can imagine most other lay people will be as well. I had
assumed (always dangerous, I know) that all companies that ran trains on
Network Rail tracks (at least as far as the tunnel into Heathrow!) and
used Network Rail stations were classed as TOCs and had obligations to
pool fares etc. Evidently not.

As you say.


What a mess our rail system has become: some stations owned/operated by
TOCs, some owned by Network Rail; some services operated by TOCs, some
operated by companies that are not TOCs. Maybe I'm biassed because I can
remember a time when the railways were operated as a single entity with
joined-up thinking!



You've got a bloody good memory then, I don't remember that, though
admittedly BR in its final years came closer than the current shower.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html