Plans to curb 'rip off' rail fares.

[F Great Eastern]

Already I've heard that people want simplification and the number of tickets available to be reduced.

They are exceptionally naive to think that if this happens it will result in lower priced tickets. It will much more likely lead to the opposite because special offer tickets, rovers, rangers and advance purchase details will no doubt be the first tickets to go.

Things such as Group Save for example and duo tickets and all of the rangers are very good tickets which save people money. I'd rather have a less simple ticketing system and such tickets rather than lose these others to "simplify" ticketing for others.

It is exceptionally worrying that some people who do not understand the railways are backing simplification at all costs, they do not seem to appreciate that this will most likely increase the cost to travel for them.

I have worked in companies where we have simplified our offer to customers - all it was, was simply marketing speak for hiking up the lowest prices and making small tweaks to the highest without saying it directly, since it sounds better to say you are simplifying your offer, than removing the cheapest elements of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a shame Multipass didn't seem to amount to anything. Seemed like a great concept, but I guess the complexities of pricing were too great.

( https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-fare-after-travelled-multipass-british-rail )

Having read that I think I would lack trust in it.

 

[yorksrob]

There's a reason that the phrase "sunk cost fallacy" exists.

For example, a lot of tourist attractions I've been to in recent years sell an annual pass for the price of a day ticket (the Deep in Hull, the Space Centre in Leicester...). That means that it's free for me to go there again and again, but (even though I'd paid my money up front, permitting me to go weekly if I so choose) that doesn't mean I've felt the need to do so. Paying up front for an annual rail discount won't make people use the train more, unless the train is good value (regardless of the sunk cost).

That reminds me of the TV sitcom Dear John in which the protaganist and his son had a season ticket to the zoo, which soon loses its attraction.

Nevertheless, the railway (for most people) is not a tourist attraction. It is a mode of transport which can facilitate visits to many tourist attractions. The sunk cost is just part of the attraction of the product - the third off discount helps to make the train good value, which will make people use it more often.

The railcards we have are commercial products to promote the railway. They do not primarily exist to subsidise existing travel for disadvantaged groups which would have taken place anyway. They clearly generate additional travel, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't work out if this is just an RDG initiative on non-regulated fares, or if the DfT has given them a green light to propose something radical across the board.
This would include regulated season tickets and certain off-peak fares which box in the rest of the fares system, along with other control aspects of the 1995 BR baseline.
It has proved very difficult in the past for the different TOCs to agree on anything beyond the useless "simplification" of fare types we have had, and maybe Oyster acceptance.
The interests of the long-distance TOCs are at odds with the London commuter TOCs, even when they are the same TOC (eg GWR).
Franchise contracts get in the way, as does devolved regulation (Scotland, Wales, PTEs and all the new Transport for Timbuktus).
So it's an uphill task for RDG, and might take a considerable while to implement, even with general agreement among the TOCs.
I'd like to hear from DfT what scope of change they will allow, and on what timescale.
The most meaningful change would be single leg pricing, which they have not been able to implement in the past because no proposal was acceptable to all the TOCs.
Also don't forget Virgin WC/EC, and to a lesser extent GWR and XC, are competing against airlines with similar sky-high walk-on fares and rock bottom advances.

 

[yorksrob]

Also don't forget Virgin WC/EC, and to a lesser extent GWR and XC, are competing against airlines with similar sky-high walk-on fares and rock bottom advances.

They're also competing against the old National Express coach, with rock bottom walk up fares.

 

[radamfi]

It has proved very difficult in the past for the different TOCs to agree on anything beyond the useless "simplification" of fare types we have had, and maybe Oyster acceptance.
The interests of the long-distance TOCs are at odds with the London commuter TOCs, even when they are the same TOC (eg GWR).
Franchise contracts get in the way, as does devolved regulation (Scotland, Wales, PTEs and all the new Transport for Timbuktus).
So it's an uphill task for RDG, and might take a considerable while to implement, even with general agreement among the TOCs.
I'd like to hear from DfT what scope of change they will allow, and on what timescale.
The most meaningful change would be single leg pricing, which they have not been able to implement in the past because no proposal was acceptable to all the TOCs.

Maybe it would be better if TOCs no longer set fares?

 

[plcd1]

I've read the RDG press release and watched their video. I came away silently fuming and I'm not a regular rail user nor do I fight my way through the "fares maze" very often. The entire idea starts from a presumption that the industry is somehow "unfairly" constrained and that passenger protections (in the TSA) are wrong. I agree with much of what has been said in previous posts about the likely outcome of this process.

The thing I find particularly exasperating is the "wah wah wah" sentiment from the RDG that they are seemingly not in control of anything and the industry "doesn't have all the answers". Aren't they professionals? Don't they possess expertise? Is it not the case that the RDG will decide what bits of the consultation response they wish to use and what they will discard as "unhelpful? I also get a real sense that the whole "technology has moved on" argument is just a massive ruse to make things more restrictive and less flexible (e.g. oh dear a smartcard / smartphone can't cope with break of journey so we must now abolish it).

The other hidden element in all this is the subsequent ability to reduce costs. A lot of the "get rid of those old fashioned rules" diatribe is a thinly veiled demand to be allowed to take an axe to coventional retailing channels and leave people with technology they have to largely provide and operate at their cost (smartphones, print at home tickets, online searching for fares info). All jolly lovely to refer to "revenue neutral" outcomes but not one word about operating costs, hours of operation of ticket offices or even the continued existence of such. I'd not be shocked to see a demand lurking in the consultation that statutory consultation/SoS approval for changes to ticket retailing be removed altogether - "we could be much more flexible and responsive if only there weren't these dreadful rules to comply with".

I am now out of date with the current NR fares models and related rules. I understand the wider economic and political pressures that mean the consultation will be constrained in what it can propose for later implementation but I am fearful that we will end up with a vastly more restrictive and expensive fares regime at the end. I also suspect that any technological changes will be doomed to failure / be out of date before they start. I also wonder quite where the DfT / Treasury sit in this process (other than the obvious ones of "Fat Controller" / Controller of the Piggy Bank).

 

[AM9]

I suspect they might not want to pile too much more pain on commuters because they were up in arms after the last increase (3.4%), inflation is still at 2.5% and 12 members of the present cabinet have constituencies in commuterland.

Of course, I may be wrong but irate constituents may be the last thing a minority government needs. Didn't they limit the fares rise a few years ago the last time there were grumblings? I don't think they would be able to pull that trick off again (as stated elsewhere, need to keep franchise bids coming in).

The occasional/ leisure traveller is a less homogenised group so easier to pick on.

Other than the fact that a lot of them are seniors who despite the higher turnout of younger voters at some recent elections, still need to be treated well enough to keep them on board.

 

[AlterEgo]

Already I've heard that people want simplification and the number of tickets available to be reduced.

They are exceptionally naive to think that if this happens it will result in lower priced tickets. It will much more likely lead to the opposite because special offer tickets, rovers, rangers and advance purchase details will no doubt be the first tickets to go.

Things such as Group Save for example and duo tickets and all of the rangers are very good tickets which save people money. I'd rather have a less simple ticketing system and such tickets rather than lose these others to "simplify" ticketing for others.

It is exceptionally worrying that some people who do not understand the railways are backing simplification at all costs, they do not seem to appreciate that this will most likely increase the cost to travel for them.

I have worked in companies where we have simplified our offer to customers - all it was, was simply marketing speak for hiking up the lowest prices and making small tweaks to the highest without saying it directly, since it sounds better to say you are simplifying your offer, than removing the cheapest elements of it.

It’s always interesting to hear that people who benefit from a complex fares system at the expense of less informed people wish to keep it that way. That’s this area of the forum in a nutshell.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s always interesting to hear that people who benefit from a complex fares system at the expense of less informed people wish to keep it that way. That’s this area of the forum in a nutshell.

"At the expense of less informed people".

Now that's no way to talk about the pricing managers at RDG and the TOCs.

We're not talking about closing loopholes only the geeks will understand, though, are we?

The ultimate simplification is, of course, just to charge one Anytime fare. Is that what you really want? I know Messrs Souter snf Branson probably want that...

 

[lyndhurst25]

It’s always interesting to hear that people who benefit from a complex fares system at the expense of less informed people wish to keep it that way. That’s this area of the forum in a nutshell.

If you take all the money that members of this area of the forum save "at the expense of less informed people", what percentage of the total fares income of the railway do you think that comes to? I doubt that it would even register in percentage terms.

 

[Typhoon]

Other than the fact that a lot of them are seniors who despite the higher turnout of younger voters at some recent elections, still need to be treated well enough to keep them on board.

Whilst this is true, I am not certain that rail travel would feature near the top of their wish list*; it probably would do for commuters in the Home Counties. I would also add, without any evidence, that I suspect the middle aged commuters are more likely to change who they vote for.

* I live in a 'retirement' area with a reasonable rail service; very, very few people I talk to travel by train with any sort of regularity.

 

[yorkie]

It’s always interesting to hear that people who benefit from a complex fares system at the expense of less informed people wish to keep it that way. That’s this area of the forum in a nutshell.

As I've said before, unless DfT agree to increase subsidies, any form of "simplification" is going to result in cheaper fares increasing in price. Most regular passengers (not business people) are going to be paying the cheaper fares, so will lose out.

I hardly think anyone on this forum (apart from the DfT) is going to want fares to be unnecessarily high; we all wish that the burden on farepayers would reduce. However there is absolutely no sense in asking for simplification if it is going to be "revenue neutral" and lead to many of us paying high fares.

This area of the forum, in a nutshell, is about helping people to reduce their fares, and I don't see how this can be considered anything other than a positive thing (again, unless it is being viewed from the angle of the DfT!)

 

[AlterEgo]

If you take all the money that members of this area of the forum save "at the expense of less informed people", what percentage of the total fares income of the railway do you think that comes to? I doubt that it would even register in percentage terms.

I’m not on about the bigger picture, I’m merely saying that the proponents of retaining our complicated ticket system are the same people who know it well enough to make significant savings from it. There’s nothing wrong with making savings but the vested interest is no less obvious.

 

[AlterEgo]

"At the expense of less informed people".

Now that's no way to talk about the pricing managers at RDG and the TOCs.

We're not talking about closing loopholes only the geeks will understand, though, are we?

The ultimate simplification is, of course, just to charge one Anytime fare. Is that what you really want? I know Messrs Souter snf Branson probably want that...

Nobody is suggesting that sort of simplification.

 

[Starmill]

I’m not on about the bigger picture, I’m merely saying that the proponents of retaining our complicated ticket system are the same people who know it well enough to make significant savings from it. There’s nothing wrong with making savings but the vested interest is no less obvious.

Given a comparison between a complicated system where most people are ripped off, but a small number of people use the complexity to their advantage to get a better deal, and a less complicated system where everyone is ripped off, which would you chose?

As I said in my post earlier, which you seem to have missed, I would strongly prefer a system where I get to exploit fewer loopholes, thus paying more, if that meant more people would use the railway and the railway would expand more quickly. But this is not at all likely to happen, is it? This forum copes very poorly with even a hint of idealism.

Nobody is suggesting that sort of simplification.

So what sort of simplification is being suggested? I don't see any examples?

 

[yorkie]

I’m not on about the bigger picture, I’m merely saying that the proponents of retaining our complicated ticket system are the same people who know it well enough to make significant savings from it. There’s nothing wrong with making savings but the vested interest is no less obvious.

I don't think we have a vested interest in it, but it's absolutely right and understandable that if someone is used to purchasing a fare that is currently reasonably affordable, then they would be opposed to any plans to increase that fare.

I travel to London frequently and the fares are unaffordable, does that mean I have a vested interest in the fares remaining as they are? Not really. But I travel to other places that are affordable and I am not prepared for those fares to go up in price just so that a "revenue neutral" adjustment can make expensive fares come down in price to a level that is still too high.

I think it is absolutely right to reject any attempts at reform unless it is on the basis of increased subsidy and a reduction in fares, and NOT on the basis of unfairly increasing the price of affordable fares.

This is what we should get:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13098598.1500_rail_fare_anomalies_ended_by___2_3m_grant/

Rail fares will be reduced by up to two-fifths on some journeys (41%) to tackle a decades-old anomaly that makes it cheaper to buy two tickets than a single fare, the Transport Minister has announced.

[...]

It is said the move will ensure that end-to-end fares will be at least 50p cheaper than ['splitting']

[..,]

Fares from Dundee to Portlethen will be cut by £11.30 (41%), to Aberdeen by £9.40 (34%), to Edinburgh by £7 (30%) and to Stirling by £5 (27%)...

... a promise to reduce the higher priced fares, and not to increase the costlier fares. I will fight against anything else because that is the right thing to do.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Lots of debate here, differing viewpoints being aired, concerns and so one.
The process is a consultation. Anyone here can submit a response. There will be a free form part to cover anything not covered in the other questions. It's really important that people take part and don't just confine the debate to here so that your voice is heard. The one big difference between this and most Government consultations is that it is not based on an already planned change where the objective is to tick the box marked 'consultation' before doing it anyway. In this case, the failure of successive Governments to make any decisions about updating the fares structure to reflect the 21st century is the problem, so the purpose of this exercise is to genuinely capture the input from as wider section of society as possible about what the fares structure should be achieving to stimulate a proper movement for the right sort of change - in a world where fewer and fewer people make the same Monday to Friday journey to work every day; where millions of people expect to be able to buy a ticket online yet the only regulations for selling ticket cover buying in person at a staffed ticket office, and then only based on what BR did in 1995 (so, for example, no requirement that staff at stations should be able to help with smart tickets.....); where the only regulation of leisure products is for a ticket type introduced in 1973 and rolled out nationally in 1985; etc, etc.
Don't waste the opportunity!

 

[The Ham]

One of the changes I think would be a good idea would be to have a ticket that allows you to use it for a set number of journeys. For instance bring able to buy a minimum of 10 journeys for use over a month period for the same journey cost as a weekly season ticket and then a minimum of 40 journeys for use over a 6 month period for the same journey cost as a monthly season ticket. Each journey used can be in either direction between the two named stations. There could also be options to extend the validity of the tickets for half the cost difference between the journey cost of the multi use tickets and that of the walk up journey price (i.e. you buy a 10 journey ticket use it 8 times within the month, the standard journey ticket is £10 whilst your discounted ticket costs £8 per journey, you would therefore pay £2 to extend the validity of those two remaining tickets by a week). By having at as a minimum this could be the standard method of purchase of season tickets, as it would allow those that were full time to buy their tickets weekly/monthly as they do now, but with the advantage that if they are off work for a week they can still use their tickets that they would otherwise have missed out on.

It would probably need to loaded onto a smart card and there would probably need to be some penalty for not touching in at the start of your journey (for instance let off for the first time and then it cost you two journeys there after, with enforcement action taken if you are caught more than 5 times in a year having not touched in). If you touch out at the same station within 15 minutes then the journey isn't taken off your balance (allows for people to cancel their trip easily if there's major disruption, but it's short enough that people couldn't travel for free). It may result in people touching out as soon as a train is delayed to then touch in again just as the train arrives. It could also be useful if there was an app that you could use to check the status of a ticket (active/deactivated) and your account balance, as well as allowing you to buy more tickets.

Such a system would reduce the number of tickets being brought at stations (as top ups could happen online/via the app and would allow quite a lot of people to use then rather than lots of individual tickets). This would then free up station staff for other things, much as the TVM's have (although I don't think that it would be so much that there would be enough freed up time that staff numbers could be cut).

It would, however, mean that if you were using it in conjunction with another ticket (say going to work from a friend's house) you would need to do something to activate the journey. This could done by linking a separate ticket to it so it activates when you start that journey.

I think that such a ticket system could encourage quite a lot of rail travel, especially if you could buy off peak versions for those who don't want to travel at peak times (say they work 12:00 - 20:30).

 

[whhistle]

But merging the prices...have you *seen* VTWC Anytime prices?

Sorry, I didn't mean adding together - I can see why you thought that though!
More like an average, but that's still quite high. But also means you can go any time of day.

Maybe also change the way off-peak returns and off-peak day returns work.
Waving the peak restrictions if you have an off-peak return at certain stations but not all is confusing. And why does an off-peak return cost more than an off-peak day return? Why are people penalised for coming back another day?

 

[AlterEgo]

Given a comparison between a complicated system where most people are ripped off, but a small number of people use the complexity to their advantage to get a better deal, and a less complicated system where everyone is ripped off, which would you chose?

The choice is not necessarily between those two extremes and it is misleading to frame the question like that.

Simplification will lead to winners and losers across the passenger base. Nearly all of the people who post in this area of the board will be a loser, including you (and me!).

As I said in my post earlier, which you seem to have missed, I would strongly prefer a system where I get to exploit fewer loopholes, thus paying more, if that meant more people would use the railway and the railway would expand more quickly. But this is not at all likely to happen, is it? This forum copes very poorly with even a hint of idealism.

I don’t think the railway can reasonably expect to carry ever increasing numbers of people. The latest slowdown in rail ticket sales shows that.

So what sort of simplification is being suggested? I don't see any examples?

I’d start with harmonising all off peak restrictions - every single one. Single leg pricing. Break of journey allowed on all tickets except Advance (to be renamed something other than that confusing name!). Carnets as standard instead of fixed seasons. A bonfire of confusing TOC only flows in some areas. Removing the routing guide in its entirety and reverting to “reasonable routes”.

There are a some passenger rights that can be reinstated through simplification!

Ultimately, people who post in this area (myself included) do really have a vested interest in keeping the complex system we understand as it is, because we can exploit it. However I try to take a bigger picture view and would rather the system was more intuitive and accessible for the average lay person.

I intend on submitting a consultation response and would urge others to consider doing likewise.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m not on about the bigger picture, I’m merely saying that the proponents of retaining our complicated ticket system are the same people who know it well enough to make significant savings from it. There’s nothing wrong with making savings but the vested interest is no less obvious.

I would strongly dispute the idea that offers such as rovers, rangers and groupsave constitute complications. I would say that they are good products that normal people find comparatively easy to use.

What makes things complicated for passengers are situations where fares become unexpectedly expensive, for example, withdrawing allocations of AP fares at the drop of a hat, or having different peak restrictions for every TOC, or having through journeys which are inexplicably priced a lot more than the constituent legs of that journey.

I would also dispute the idea that people who use cheaper fares are doing so "at the expense" of ordinary people. It is TOC's and the DfT who decide fares, including overpriced ones which are at the expense of those with less knowledge.

 

[yorksrob]

The choice is not necessarily between those two extremes and it is misleading to frame the question like that.

Simplification will lead to winners and losers across the passenger base. Nearly all of the people who post in this area of the board will be a loser, including you (and me!).



I don’t think the railway can reasonably expect to carry ever increasing numbers of people. The latest slowdown in rail ticket sales shows that.



I’d start with harmonising all off peak restrictions - every single one. Single leg pricing. Break of journey allowed on all tickets except Advance (to be renamed something other than that confusing name!). Carnets as standard instead of fixed seasons. A bonfire of confusing TOC only flows in some areas. Removing the routing guide in its entirety and reverting to “reasonable routes”.

There are a some passenger rights that can be reinstated through simplification!

Ultimately, people who post in this area (myself included) do really have a vested interest in keeping the complex system we understand as it is, because we can exploit it. However I try to take a bigger picture view and would rather the system was more intuitive and accessible for the average lay person.

I intend on submitting a consultation response and would urge others to consider doing likewise.

Why does it have to be carnets instead of fixed seasons. We keep hearing about the demise of the season ticket, yet thousands still seem to find them useful.

They are both easy to understand products, why not offer them both universally.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would strongly dispute the idea that offers such as rovers, rangers and groupsave constitute complications. I would say that they are good products that normal people find comparatively easy to use.

They are complications though - they’re additional products. I haven’t suggested any of those should be got rid of.

“Normal” people tend not to use rangers and rovers though - they’re a niche product catering to the enthusiast and many of them have very low sales. They could do with being promoted.

What makes things complicated for passengers are situations where fares become unexpectedly expensive, for example, withdrawing allocations of AP fares at the drop of a hat, or having different peak restrictions for every TOC, or having through journeys which are inexplicably priced a lot more than the constituent legs of that journey.

That’s why single leg pricing is a good idea. It would almost eliminate split ticketing as a method of saving money and make the system fairer for everyone. Nobody can feel they missed out on some loophole.

I would also dispute the idea that people who use cheaper fares are doing so "at the expense" of ordinary people. It is TOC's and the DfT who decide fares, including overpriced ones which are at the expense of those with less knowledge.

What I mean was people who avail of loopholes and then defend their existence don’t have any more credibility than a TOC wanting to get rid of said loophole. Fares are high in many parts of the country and using loopholes is perfectly legitimate and a morally fine thing to do. I use loopholes often (including several I keep entirely to myself). It is a lot like tax avoidance, there are consequences down the line.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why does it have to be carnets instead of fixed seasons. We keep hearing about the demise of the season ticket, yet thousands still seem to find them useful.

They are both easy to understand products, why not offer them both universally.

Ha, people “find seasons useful” because they’re the only product available to make their journey! Not many carnet products about.

Why would a season ticket be more useful than a carnet, assuming you load the both products onto a smart card (an inevitability).

 

[bb21]

There are a some passenger rights that can be reinstated through simplification!

Agreed. Plenty of things can be improved through genuine simplification to benefit average punters.

Genuine simplification has a big advantage in reducing the ability of unscrupulous TOCs to increase fares by stealth through the removal of fare types and amended restriction codes, and make it much easier to monitor unauthorised changes in routeing permission.

I'd also throw in a zonal fares system in urban areas, much simpler to understand for almost everyone, and the withdrawl of dirt cheap Advances intended as nothing other than an ORCATS raid, but replace it with a much reduced gap between walk-ons (reduced in price) and advance bookings (bottom few tiers to be scrapped in some cases), plus minimum discount levels for advance booking train-specific fares (to stop daft situations like Advances more expensive than or close to the price of walk-ons being sold). Train-specific tickets should be barred from services where normal loading is over a certain threshold to actually manage demand through them rather than being a purely commercial tool. Rovers/Rangers to be harmonised and re-evaluated to ensure suitable coverage across board and act effectively as an off-peak version of season tickets. Railcards to be simplified in terms, with possible introduction of regional versions available to general population in a similar form to Network Railcard as an alternative to a fully national one if the latter deemed to be revenue negative. Excesses to be abolished but the ability to refund and reissue without penalty to be introduced with single-leg pricing and the abolition of return fares.

I'd also move away from the "peak/off-peak by ticket" model and into "peak/off-peak by train" model but segments may be designated "peak" on each journey rather than necessarily whole journeys.

Didn't realise I just rambled on and on.

 

[yorksrob]

They are complications though - they’re additional products. I haven’t suggested any of those should be got rid of.

“Normal” people tend not to use rangers and rovers though - they’re a niche product catering to the enthusiast and many of them have very low sales. They could do with being promoted.




That’s why single leg pricing is a good idea. It would almost eliminate split ticketing as a method of saving money and make the system fairer for everyone. Nobody can feel they missed out on some loophole.



What I mean was people who avail of loopholes and then defend their existence don’t have any more credibility than a TOC wanting to get rid of said loophole. Fares are high in many parts of the country and using loopholes is perfectly legitimate and a morally fine thing to do. I use loopholes often (including several I keep entirely to myself). It is a lot like tax avoidance, there are consequences down the line.

I personally don't regard anything that my friends and family (who aren't enthusiasts by any stretch) find easy to use as a complication. This certainly includes groupsave and rangers.

In terms of single leg pricing, it might eliminate some splits where a return leg is in the peak or off-peak, however the ones that I tend to use are often as a result of PTE boundaries. I'm reluctant to see these "tackled" as I fear that they will lead to higher prices in the PTE area, rather than more reasonable ones outside of it, leading to a worse deal for hundreds of thousands of ordinary passengers, as well as greater pollution and congestion in cities.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If Off-Peak restrictions are to be simplified then this should be along the lines of what the regulated flows must be valid at - e.g. tickets to stations nearer to London than MKC, RDG etc. must be valid to board a train no later than X (I believe it's currently 09:30 or 10:00), and may have an evening peak restriction, say between 16:00 and 18:30.

All other tickets other than those around defined metropolises (e.g. the devolved nations' capitals and maybe Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds) should then be valid after some blanket time, such as 09:00 or something. A similar thing could also be done for Super Off-Peak tickets.

The simplification of what it and isn't peak will inevitably lead to winners and losers. And for example for very rural flows there simply may be no point to having a cheaper Off-Peak ticket at all if there is no significant morning/evening peak.

But I do agree that at the moment, ticket restrictions and ticket types are too complicated for a lot of people to understand properly. I know some friends who thought that they had grabbed a massive bargain by buying an Off-Peak ticket 3 months in advance - before Advances were released. And then they thought that they could only travel on the train they had a reservation for.

I think a lot of it could be helped by making the validity of each ticket type clearer on online TISes and for example warning if Advances are usually available for a flow but aren't at the time for whatever reason - stating that for example 'Usually you can get fixed-train tickets for this journey. At the moment you can only get flexible tickets. Consider looking back later to see if fixed-train tickets get released.'

 

[AlterEgo]

I personally don't regard anything that my friends and family (who aren't enthusiasts by any stretch) find easy to use as a complication. This certainly includes groupsave and rangers.

I didn't say that Groupsave was an enthusiast's product and was careful not to include it.

Rangers and rovers are very niche though and as I said, many of them have low sales. In part this is due to their nature, but also because a lot of them aren't promoted properly.

In terms of single leg pricing, it might eliminate some splits where a return leg is in the peak or off-peak, however the ones that I tend to use are often as a result of PTE boundaries. I'm reluctant to see these "tackled" as I fear that they will lead to higher prices in the PTE area, rather than more reasonable ones outside of it, leading to a worse deal for hundreds of thousands of ordinary passengers, as well as greater pollution and congestion in cities.

Why would single leg pricing result in higher PTE fares?

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't say that Groupsave was an enthusiast's product and was careful not to include it.

Rangers and rovers are very niche though and as I said, many of them have low sales. In part this is due to their nature, but also because a lot of them aren't promoted properly.



Why would single leg pricing result in higher PTE fares?

I'm not saying it would automatically lead to higher PTE fares. I'm saying it wouldn't eliminate benefits from splitting.

It is eliminating splitting on such journeys that I fear would lead to higher PTE fares.