1st ALR Railcard Discounts

[yorkie]

Yorkie, you misunderstand me, the 1st discount doesn't bother me, especially the idea of a walk up 1st fare is becoming increasingly rare, I see far many more YP discounted advances in 1st as I do walk up seniors.

What bothers me much much more is the 10am minimum fare. Take for example the 08.50 Lowestoft to Norwich, its an off peak train. A passenger with a senior card pays £5.50 whereas someone with a YP card pays £8.30 for a day return to Norwich. They are both eligible for for a railcard and have both paid the same for a railcard offering the same discount, its just wrong.

That's just another example of the unfairness (and also confusing nature of the system for staff who are meant to check all these things); I am in agreement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we're going to worry about age discrimination, isn't that lack of a national railcard for everyone else more important?

It wasn't what the OP was asking and we've had threads on that before (and my views are unchanged), but yes of course, you're absolutely right!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just as the £13 minimum for a network railcard also stops it being unusable for a lot of tickets in the week.

I am surprised we don't have discounted first class tickets off peak (even without a railcard), as first class on many trains is empty bar for those who don't actually have first class tickets or when it's declassified.

1) Yes that's ridiculous too (but again we've had threads for that).
2) There are for some flows (but yes there should be more!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Age based concessions are specifically exempt

Yes but in most of those cases there can be conceivable sensible reasons. In this case I believe it's a misuse of that concession (perhaps not in legal terms but in any sensible terms!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me, the lack of YP discount on 1st Anytime/Off Peak tickets doesn't present too much of a problem, as walk-up 1st tickets for journeys over ~30 miles are often so ridiculously priced that I wouldn't even consider them with a discount.

Example: Crewe->Lancaster is £63.
Manchester->Birmingham is £95.
London-Kettering is £78.50

If people of my age have that kind of money lying around then they're probably going to buy the first class product regardless of whether there's a discount or not. I don't think the number of 16-25 year olds buying 1st walk-up tickets would change much if there was a YP discount available.

Indeed you are quite right, but surely the same applies for Senior Railcard holders!

 

[bnm]

perhaps not in legal terms but in any sensible terms!

Care to expand on any of these sensible terms you believe in? Opinion of what is 'sensible' will differ from person to person. That's why we have 'legal'.

 

[causton]

Indeed you are quite right, but surely the same applies for Senior Railcard holders!

Not exclusively, I have served some elderly customers who are unfamiliar with the trains and buy first class tickets just to give them extra peace of mind that they have more chance of getting a seat - they did not seem overly happy about the price compared to standard but I guess they wanted the reassurance they would be less likely to be shoved in a vestibule for their journey!

 

[cuccir]

They're different products. I'm generalizing about people here, but what I'm speaking about are the 'imagined consumers' of these products: both 16-25 year olds and over 60s are far more divers than I describe below.

The 16-25 Railcard is targeted primarily at school pupils and students. Its aim is to lessen the impact of the move from child to adult fares, which is particularly valuable for the younger segment of the group who will have less disposable income and would otherwise be priced off the trains. Students often have much more flexible timetables than people in work, so are more likely to be able to travel after 10am. We're more likely to accept cramped conditions when we're young, and tend to value flexibility and the ability to socialize with larger groups - this undermines the attractions of 1st class for this group and so the discount would be less appealing. As for young workers or graduates - the product is simply not targeted at them, and I suspect the post-10am rule is intended to push people towards season tickets, which are discounted in their own way.

By contrast, the over 60s card is about attracting retired people. They have lots of leisure time but also lots of leisure options and are likely to have access to a car or to coach trips. So rail has to offer something more to them, and here the first class offering might appeal. If mobility is reduced, that will only enhance the attractiveness of this.

So in my view the different offers are based upon the different imagined markets.

Yorkie, I wonder which of the following people who are eligible for Disabled railcards you feel are:

not actually disabled in any meaningful sense

People who:

• receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP)?
• receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA) at either the higher or lower rate for the mobility component, or the higher or middle rate for the care component?
• have a visual impairment?
• have a hearing impairment?
• have epilepsy?
• receive Attendance Allowance or Severe Disablement Allowance?
• receive War Pensioner's Mobility Supplement?
• receive War or Service Disablement Pension for 80% or more disability?
• buy or lease a vehicle through the Motability scheme?

 

[DeeGee]

So you can be gainfully employed and earning a pretty packet, getting a "free" car through Motability due to your infirmity, yet be equally entitled to discounted 1st class rail fare, whereas the impoverished youngster starting out on the employment journey has to buy his own car and can't spend his Christmas money n a little treat for himself.

Yep, seems fair to me :-x

 

[cuccir]

So you can be gainfully employed and earning a pretty packet, getting a "free" car through Motability due to your infirmity, yet be equally entitled to discounted 1st class rail fare, whereas the impoverished youngster starting out on the employment journey has to buy his own car and can't spend his Christmas money n a little treat for himself.

Yep, seems fair to me :-x

Motability is means tested, I believe, or based upon receiving means tested benefits.

I suppose that people with significant visual and hearing impediments but some wealth might 'unfairly' get these benefits. Objecting to this would seem a touch churlish though.

Either way, unless I've misunderstood,the 16-25 and 60+ railcards are commercial products - it's not about fairness, it's about a marketing and pricing by TOCs.

Now if we want to nationalise the railways we can start looking at this again

 

[Iskra]

Thank you all for answering my query. I agree the system is very inconsistent.

I find it strange, as I would get a 1st ALR on my 16-25 railcard if I could, as when you're spending that much time on trains as you would on an ALR, then that's when the comfort matters most to me.

 

[ScottishIain]

Motability is means tested, I believe, or based upon receiving means tested benefits.



I suppose that people with significant visual and hearing impediments but some wealth might 'unfairly' get these benefits. Objecting to this would seem a touch churlish though.



Either way, unless I've misunderstood,the 16-25 and 60+ railcards are commercial products - it's not about fairness, it's about a marketing and pricing by TOCs.



Now if we want to nationalise the railways we can start looking at this again

The Motability scheme is not means tested. To be eligible to you need to be receiving the higher rate mobility component of DLA, enhanced rate mobility component of Personal Independent Payment or the War Pensioners Mobility Supplement. None of these benefits are also means tested.

 

[yorkie]

So in my view the different offers are based upon the different imagined markets.

A member of the rail industry admitted to me the other day that the TOCs know 16-25 year olds are more likely to be rowdy in 1st class than 60+ year olds but won't ever admit it. And, as he put it, "why would they?" Let's stop pretending there are other reasons.

Yorkie, I wonder which of the following people who are eligible for Disabled railcards you feel are...

It was a Disabled Railcard holder himself who told me it doesn't really make any sense! I know someone else (who I encouraged to apply for one) who was really surprised that he was eligible. I don't need to make judgements on this; some of the holders of such cards are quite honest about how it makes little sense that they are entitled to certain discounts which various other groups of people are not.

 

[Frontera2]

Yorkie, ref you first point.. Whoever said that to you was spot on.

Reference the disabled railcard, people who suffer from non debilitating mental health conditions also qualify I believe. Yet these are people able to lead perfectly normal lives....

 

[infobleep]

To be honest, I think the same should apply to every other railcard too - ie standard only except for advances. The whole idea of railcards is to help make travel more affordable for groups who otherwise might go by other means, if you can afford a discounted walk up first fare then you can clearly afford a full price standard walk up fare.

Why should a person who's 23 but disabled (and bearing in mind the criteria for being classed as disabled isn't exceptionally high) be able to get discounted first class tickets when their mate who's the same age but isn't disabled can't?

Why should a person with learning disabilities on average not be able to earn more money than a person without learning disabilities? They are the same age after all.

 

[anme]

I understand that British Rail introduced railcards because they thought that overall they would be profitable. It's an early example of differential pricing. Put simply, the amount that two groups of people are prepared to pay to make the same journey may be different. Assume we have groups A and B. Group A are prepared to pay 100 pounds to make a journey, and group B are prepared to pay 70 pounds. As a business, obviously I want to carry as many group A passengers as possible, but there may not be enough of them to fill a train. Therefore, I can make more money if I carry some group B's as well. I could reduce the price to 70 pounds, but then I'm not charging group A as much as I'd like to.

So, I want some way to charge group A people the full price, but offer a discount to group B, so that I can maximise my income. If I can divide those two groups sufficiently well in some readily identifiable way, then I may be able to make more money than simply setting one price for all. Age is one obvious way, and that is what young persons' and senior railcards do. Other methods include advance fares, on the theory that discretionary travellers who will accept only the lowest prices are also the most flexible and the most willing and able to book well in advance. Business travellers who will often not be able to plan so far in advance, or others who have to travel at the last minute, are more likely to be prepared to pay far more. It's all about optimising the total income from the service offered.

This is a heavily simplified explanation, but I hope the point is clear. Railcards were not introduced out of some sense of fairness or justice, even though many may perceive them that way. I don't know whether railcards are still profitable overall for the railways, but given the bizarre structure of the industry in the UK it's very hard to change anything and they are likely to stay for the foreseeable future.

 

[Ianigsy]

From what I remember, when Railcards were introduced in the early 1980s or thereabouts, there was a sense that rail fares were starting to get too expensive- remember this was also the age of the Serpell Report, so BR had to generate additional leisure travel at little or no extra cost. Further education had expanded dramatically in the 1960s and created a market for long distance travel as it became normal for young people to study some distance away from home, but National Express was competing better on price to potential passengers who weren't necessarily that worried about time. It was also the age of Peter Parker, who understood that rail needed to nurture its market and that today's students are tomorrow's businessmen and women.

The Senior Railcard's target market has, I think, always been the retired folk who have family members spread around the country and make several longer journeys over the course of the year as well as ad-hoc leisure travel. It's always been treated slightly more favourably than the 16-25 - it's just more socially acceptable to treat a younger person more harshly than a retired one, and I'd suspect that from a practical point of view, older folk can be more dogged with a grievance because they have the time to pursue it. The absence of a photocard, for example, enabled my grandmother and her neighbour (both 15-20 years deceased) to effectively share a card for several years.

In the last couple of decades we've become more used to the idea of the grey pound and in most areas of commercial activity, the retired are seen as a market to be cultivated. The irony is that we're now reaching a stage where patrons aged 60+ constitute such a majority of the patrons of certain events that it ceases to be worth offering a concessionary admission rate because only 10% of those attending will pay full whack. What happens once the generation of retirees with full final salary pensions who could afford to buy their homes early has passed on remains to be seen!