Grrr... half-return fares

[OLJR]

On Saturday I am going from Vauxhall to Bentley and then returning from Farnham to Vauxhall.

But of course I cannot buy a return ticket on that journey and have to buy either two singles or a return ticket to Bentley, which costs GBP 1.60 more than Farnham. Essentially the railway is doing me out of GBP 0.80.

In this day and age why can I not buy a return ticket that combines two return fares on a basis to reflect the journey I am actually making?

Grrr... :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this day and age, why can't we simply move to single-fare pricing? People don't go "look, there's a heavy discount on returns, I'll make a return journey". They avoid making single journeys and make them by car, because other than when an Advance is available they are priced at rip-off levels.

It would also obviate the need for excesses - if one single is not relevant any more, refund it and replace it with a fare that is. Perhaps the admin fee could be waived or reduced in such cases.

 

[Haywain]

And yet again we have to mention that any change would need to be revenue neutral, which would mean as many prices going up as would go down.

 

[swt_passenger]

And yet again we have to mention that any change would need to be revenue neutral, which would mean as many prices going up as would go down.

I can only think Neil Williams must probably ignore all the routes that don't currently have evening peak restrictions.

 

[Starmill]

And yet again we have to mention that any change would need to be revenue neutral, which would mean as many prices going up as would go down.

It could also be made revenue neutral if more people travel as a result. If well-implemented and promoted this would be almost certain to make a contribution.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

On Saturday I am going from Vauxhall to Bentley and then returning from Farnham to Vauxhall.

But of course I cannot buy a return ticket on that journey and have to buy either two singles or a return ticket to Bentley, which costs GBP 1.60 more than Farnham. Essentially the railway is doing me out of GBP 0.80.

In this day and age why can I not buy a return ticket that combines two return fares on a basis to reflect the journey I am actually making?

Grrr... :roll:

There was once a way to do that sort of thing. Then some people realised that there was money to be saved by exploiting the rules, so the rules changed to stop that happening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yet again we have to mention that any change would need to be revenue neutral, which would mean as many prices going up as would go down.

Not massively, as most journeys are not single journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can only think Neil Williams must probably ignore all the routes that don't currently have evening peak restrictions.

I am in favour of evening peak restrictions on such routes.

 

[Nicholas43]

Only offering (reasonably-priced) singles would increase GWR's revenue on the journey I often make: Oxford to London and back. If either leg is going to be peak time, I go both ways by bus. If there were (1) a basic single fare (2) a supplement for using defined peak trains (3) no return fares whatever (4) no annoyingly-tied-to-one-train "advances", then I (and I think many others) would use the trains more often.
The principle could even be extended to have one single fare between London Terminals and Brighton, with a supplement for using a Brighton Belle, oops I mean "Gatwick Express".

 

[Haywain]

It could also be made revenue neutral if more people travel as a result. If well-implemented and promoted this would be almost certain to make a contribution.

You make a fair point, but are TOCS going to take that chance? I think not.

 

[anme]

And yet again we have to mention that any change would need to be revenue neutral, which would mean as many prices going up as would go down.

I can live with that. Why should people who make one way journeys subsidise those who make return journeys?

 

[telstarbox]

Because the costs of running the railway are not proportionate to passenger miles travelled.

 

[Starmill]

You make a fair point, but are TOCS going to take that chance? I think not.

It needn't be that much of a risk with a shrewd analysis of the demand curve in the market the TOC serves, and has the potential to be very significantly revenue positive where additional capacity is being made available. All it takes is one brave pioneer...

 

[Haywain]

I don't see TOCS queuing up to follow GWR into that area.

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

 

[Starmill]

I suspect the issues with the GWR approach are:
- It's not a 50% discount, or even a 45% discount, it's more like a 40% discount for most flows
- They don't have significant spare capacity, even at "off-peak" times on most routes, therefore;
- The restrictions are particularly onerous, typically blocking departures between 1500 and 1900.

At the same time, it hasn't been going so badly for them that they have tried to undo it, and in addition to Grand Central who offer something very similar, there is a tentative move as you very well know at VT and GR to make the same level of discount available with certain other restrictions, such as buying another ticket for the same journey but in the other direction.

So I suspect that there is a future for this approach - and I suspect strongly that there is a way to make it revenue positive, or it wouldn't have made it this far.

 

[anme]

Because the costs of running the railway are not proportionate to passenger miles travelled.

Are you defending the cases where a single ticket is great than 95% of the cost of a return? By any chance, do you mostly buy returns?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the costs of running the railway are not proportionate to passenger miles travelled.

They aren't, but walk-up fare levels are largely based on a combination of distance and peak/off peak (i.e. gouge business travellers vs. don't gouge leisure travellers quite so much). Near halving the fare for return journeys doesn't fit that model so well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the same time, it hasn't been going so badly for them that they have tried to undo it, and in addition to Grand Central who offer something very similar, there is a tentative move as you very well know at VT and GR to make the same level of discount available with certain other restrictions, such as buying another ticket for the same journey but in the other direction.

TOCs like Advance fares as they get to set them around the level they want, and they like getting all the money from the passenger rather than just a share of it.

This being the case, these "half returns" to pair with an Advance allow passengers who need one-way flexibility to do so, or allow an Advance to be used in one direction where one isn't available in the other.

That said, the big case for single-fare pricing isn't people making actual single journeys - this is relatively few people. The big case is for simplification of things like open-jaw, multiple-route and three-point journeys - and that it would allow the effective removal of complex excess rules - if the ticket doesn't suit, refund and reissue.

 

[bb21]

The fundamental difficulty with forecasting passenger growth is that it can be affected by a large number of factors. I am sure Virgin East Coast tried their best at doing so, and are apparently falling short of target because of a large number of external factors.

Will anyone in the industry be brave enough for such a wholesale change of the fares system? We'll have to wait and see but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Starmill]

Will anyone in the industry be brave enough for such a wholesale change of the fares system? We'll have to wait and see but somehow I doubt it.

I shouldn't imagine that the change will happen by itself. It's unlikely to be inspired by the market. In an ideal world, it ought to be one of the things driven by a regulator. But we all know how that one goes down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I shouldn't imagine that the change will happen by itself. It's unlikely to be inspired by the market. In an ideal world, it ought to be one of the things driven by a regulator. But we all know how that one goes down.

Well, it was the railway itself (Virgin West Coast, in fact) that innovated the idea of Advances being single fares. In BR days all were returns, so to get one your chosen quota had to be available on both trains.

It does confuse me as to why that has never properly made it to walk-ups.

 

[najaB]

I'm amazed at how many people want "cheap fares", "massive investment" and "no subsidy" and think they can get all three.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm amazed at how many people want "cheap fares", "massive investment" and "no subsidy" and think they can get all three.

With regard to this issue I would be happy to see a small increase in return fares to allow making singles half the relevant returns. It would be small, because relatively few people *actually* make single journeys, and there may be some gain from things like it making three-point journeys and similar vaguely viable, whereas at present if you have a three-point or open jaw journey where there isn't a routeing quirk that allows it to be done on one ticket it can be very expensive, and thus result in a car trip instead.

 

[Starmill]

I'm amazed at how many people want "cheap fares", "massive investment" and "no subsidy" and think they can get all three.

I think this is pessimistic. A long, fast, full electric train can offer a sensible pence per mile average fare to everyone on it, and cover its costs (including the imputed costs such as operator profit and funding for infrastructure).

The marginal cost of a passenger kilometer on an 11-car electric train is going to be tiny, but you're still getting a marginal fare.

Obviously not all trains will operate at this kind of level, but personally I'm optimistic that this is possible on the kind of scale that leaves enough cash moving through the system to reduce subsidy, offer the most competitive fares and leave cash for improvements.

 

[najaB]

I think this is pessimistic.

It's not pessimistic, it's pragmatic. You simply can't have all three at the same time. Where is the large fleet of 11 carriage electric trains going to come from if not from fares and subsidy?

 

[Starmill]

Where the fleet of 11-car electric trains that we have got came from: the private sector! It's going pretty well for them. If you have a very efficient operation, these are achievable. My view remains that taken together as a whole, all of the railway that we've got can support itself in this way. It's actually also my view that, politically this is an unnecessarily high bar. The railway offers external benefits to the wider economy, and crucially the environment that means increased usage of it is still worthwhile even at a loss. But this is a slightly different issue.

 

[najaB]

Where the fleet of 11-car electric trains that we have got came from: the private sector!

You mean the DfT with a contribution from the private sector - on the back of fares that you regularly refer to as 'eye-watering' or similar?

 

[OLJR]

I'm amazed at how many people want "cheap fares", "massive investment" and "no subsidy" and think they can get all three.

I am not asking for cheaper fares - I just want to pay for the journey I actually make!

 

[najaB]

I am not asking for cheaper fares - I just want to pay for the journey I actually make!

I wasn't specifically referring to you in my post, more the people who want wholesale reform of the ticketing system without acknowledging the potential to result in higher fares or increased subsidy.

 

[Starmill]

You mean the DfT with a contribution from the private sector - on the back of fares that you regularly refer to as 'eye-watering' or similar?

I think you've missed my point. Costs can go down and passenger km can increase simultaneously with relatively small up-front investment. If this persists, and it is doing so pretty well so far, average fares could fall in the long term.

Keeping the current system is in my interest, because I know how to play it to get very very low pence per mile and do lots of travelling. Most people don't and wouldn't be prepared to spend the amount of time I do doing fares research. On a recent forum meet, myself and others did 390 miles for £23 - about 6p a mile. Inevitably a simpler system with cheaper headline fares and a structure that's better for the typical customer, such as this one, would end up costing me more through the eventual closure of many of the current 'fares planning techniques'. I'm still arguing for that.