Proposals to simplify fares to reduce disputes

[NARobertson]

In this country there seems to be an industry around travelling on invalid tickets, not infrequently because of expired railcards. This hive of activity is largely a consequence of a complex fares structure, with many anomalies, such as changing at Didcot. It would be simpler, involve far fewer problems, reduce the opportunities for fare dodgers, and cut out much overmanning in ticket collectors and RPIs if there was a one journey, one ticket type structure with no railcards. Such a simplification would result in some people paying more, but others would pay substantially less.

 

[Hadders]

In this country there seems to be an industry around travelling on invalid tickets, not infrequently because of expired railcards. This hive of activity is largely a consequence of a complex fare structure, with many anomalies. It would be simpler, involve far fewer problems, reduce the opportunities for fare dodgers, and cut out much overmanning in ticket collectors and RPIs if there was a one journey, one ticket type with no railcards. Such a simplification would result in some people paying more but others would pay substantially less.

How much would your proposed fare from London to Manchester cost?

How would you make sure that the busiest services were not over crowded?

 

[221129]

Such a simplification would result in some people paying more

It would see the majority of people paying more. And then pricing off the most vulnerable and poorer people of society.

 

[island]

In this country there seems to be an industry around travelling on invalid tickets, not infrequently because of expired railcards. This hive of activity is largely a consequence of a complex fares structure, with many anomalies, such as changing at Didcot. It would be simpler, involve far fewer problems, reduce the opportunities for fare dodgers, and cut out much overmanning in ticket collectors and RPIs if there was a one journey, one ticket type structure with no railcards. Such a simplification would result in some people paying more, but others would pay substantially less.

What, pray tell, is complicated about a Railcard having an expiry date after which it can no longer be used?

 

[AlterEgo]

In this country there seems to be an industry around travelling on invalid tickets, not infrequently because of expired railcards. This hive of activity is largely a consequence of a complex fares structure

No it isn't. It's wrong to suggest that having an expired railcard is "complex". It's extremely simple and just about the simplest thing about the fares system.

, with many anomalies, such as changing at Didcot.

What "industry" is there about invalid tickets in this respect? Do you have evidence that the people who do this - who are usually very savvy - are getting caught out all the time and having to pay more?

It would be simpler, involve far fewer problems, reduce the opportunities for fare dodgers

Simpler fares do not reduce opportunities for fare dodgers. Take a look at the Disputes area; people dodge £3 single fares. There's nothing complicated about it at all.

, and cut out much overmanning in ticket collectors and RPIs if there was a one journey, one ticket type structure with no railcards.

How would simpler fares do this, exactly?

Such a simplification would result in some people paying more, but others would pay substantially less.

Well, we can agree on this.

There are some good arguments for simplification but you haven't made any of them here.

 

[Hadders]

Expanding on my example of London to Manchester. The current standards class fares are:

Anytime Return £369.40
Off Peak Return £94.50

What should the simple fare be?

Would routes would this fare be valid for travel on. Would travel via Chesterfield be allowed, for example?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Expanding on my example of London to Manchester. The current standards class fares are:

Anytime Return £369.40
Off Peak Return £94.50

What should the simple fare be?

Would routes would this fare be valid for travel on. Would travel via Chesterfield be allowed, for example?

I've always thought and talked here sporadically about the state and disparity between fares in certain areas

We're often reminded about the MML being a complete rip off compared to equal distanced stations just across county borders on the WCML or the ECML

Or how traveller on predominantly commuter TOCs get screwed for very short journeys especially on SWR, SE, GOVIA TL!

I believed and commented before a pence per mile figure should be paid, and that fixed regardless of station location so you know a Leeds to Manchester costs the same as a Ipswich to London (if my distances are close)
During peak hours than would attract a 25 or 30% premium on an off peak fare but those would be the highest fares chargeable

Then beneath that 4 or 5 levels of PPM on Advances etc... that stick to a similar format.

No franchised TOC would touch it with a borrowed one because using my situation if SE still existed they had a captive market and they can charge what they can get away with and charging me £67.10 Anytime Rtn to London is criminal for car journey distance of 70miles (less by rail) and nearly 2hrs

Whereas a Northampton to Euston is £57ish but about 1hr and a few mins and around the same distance.

So slower, more expensive and a less frequent service.

We need a levelling up across the UK, and a total overhaul of the pricing.

 

[Hadders]

The problem with a fixed price per mile is that some journeys would be too expensive and some too cheap.

How much would Plymouth to Penzance cost, and should this be more than Reading to Paddington.

Take London to Birmingham, what would the fare be for travelling via High Wycombe or Northampton, and how would this compare to the fare for using a direct Avanti train.

Would Peterborough to Nottingham be valid via Leicester? If so what would the fare be?

How much would it cost to travel from Scarborough to Whitby? Would this fare be competitive with the bus?

Mileage based fares sound great but they’re really not feasible and would introduce more anomalies than they would fix.

 

[NARobertson]

Expanding on my example of London to Manchester. The current standards class fares are:

Anytime Return £369.40
Off Peak Return £94.50

What should the simple fare be?

Would routes would this fare be valid for travel on. Would travel via Chesterfield be allowed, for exa

The problem with a fixed price per mile is that some journeys would be too expensive and some too cheap.

How much would Plymouth to Penzance cost, and should this be more than Reading to Paddington.

Take London to Birmingham, what would the fare be for travelling via High Wycombe or Northampton, and how would this compare to the fare for using a direct Avanti train.

Would Peterborough to Nottingham be valid via Leicester? If so what would the fare be?

How much would it cost to travel from Scarborough to Whitby? Would this fare be competitive with the bus?

Mileage based fares sound great but they’re really not feasible and would introduce more anomalies than they would fix.

The problem with a fixed price per mile is that some journeys would be too expensive and some too cheap.

How much would Plymouth to Penzance cost, and should this be more than Reading to Paddington.

The problem with a fixed price per mile is that some journeys would be too expensive and some too cheap.

How much would Plymouth to Penzance cost, and should this be more than Reading to Paddington.

Take London to Birmingham, what would the fare be for travelling via High Wycombe or Northampton, and how would this compare to the fare for using a direct Avanti train.

Would Peterborough to Nottingham be valid via Leicester? If so what would the fare be?

How much would it cost to travel from Scarborough to Whitby? Would this fare be competitive with the bus?

Mileage based fares sound great but they’re really not feasible and would introduce more anomalies than they would fix.

Take London to Birmingham, what would the fare be for travelling via High Wycombe or Northampton, and how would this compare to the fare for using a direct Avanti train.

Would Peterborough to Nottingham be valid via Leicester? If so what would the fare be?

How much would it cost to travel from Scarborough to Whitby? Would this fare be competitive with the bus?

Mileage based fares sound great but they’re really not feasible and would introduce more anomalies than they would fix.

In the middle of the last century the fares structure was a fixed change per mile up to 200 miles, after which the charge per mile gradually fell off. This was relatively simple, understandable by customers and avoided too many anomalies. Variations in demand were largely accounted for by adding more coaches to trains and by running relief trains. Controlling passenger flows by charging extortionate fares on some trains is basically passing the railway's problems onto passengers and, as such, is a symptom of a dysfunctional system.

 

[yorkie]

In the middle of the last century the fares structure was a fixed change per mile up to 200 miles, after which the charge per mile gradually fell off. This was relatively simple, understandable by customers and avoided too many anomalies. Variations in demand were largely accounted for by adding more coaches to trains and by running relief trains. Controlling passenger flows by charging extortionate fares on some trains is basically passing the railway's problems onto passengers and, as such, is a symptom of a dysfunctional system.

Can you provide some examples of what you think the fares should be?

 

[NARobertson]

Rather than give what would inevitably be a personal opinion, I simply give an example from a nearby country of similar size and rail network.

Looking at the DB website I found the fares for a return journey from Cologne to Berlin (548 km/340 miles), outward on a Tuesday and back on a Thursday. The fares for tickets that can be used on any trains on the dates in question are 225.9 euros (2nd class) and 423 euros (1st class), which includes a so called City ticket for use on public transport at the destination. There are also various cheaper offers for travelling on specific trains and railcard reductions (giving either 25% or 50% reductions and open for sale to all). These trains are generally ICEs and the legroom in 2nd class is the same as that in 1st class, which compare very favorably with the very cramped Voyager trains in this country. There is a restaurant car on the train, with an at seat service for first class passengers, who also get free newspapers. These tickets can be exchanged or refunded without charge before the day of travel.

 

[yorkie]

Rather than give what would inevitably be a personal opinion, I simply give an example from a nearby country of similar size and rail network.

Looking at the DB website I found the fares for a return journey from Cologne to Berlin (548 km/340 miles), outward on a Tuesday and back on a Thursday. The fares for tickets that can be used on any trains on the dates in question are 225.9 euros (2nd class) and 423 euros (1st class), which includes a so called City ticket for use on public transport at the destination. There are also various cheaper offers for travelling on specific trains and railcard reductions (giving either 25% or 50% reductions and open for sale to all). These trains are generally ICEs and the legroom in 2nd class is the same as that in 1st class, which compare very favorably with the very cramped Voyager trains in this country. There is a restaurant car on the train, with an at seat service for first class passengers, who also get free newspapers. These tickets can be exchanged or refunded without charge before the day of travel.

225.9 euros for a single or a return? This is a flexible fare, valid at any time, with no discount for travelling off peak, is that right?

And yes they will have various different price points for Advance fares and various discounts; your opening post suggested we should have "one ticket type structure with no railcards" system.

What might I pay for journeys such as York to London, York to Whitby, York to Sheffield, under your proposed system?

 

[75A]

What, pray tell, is complicated about a Railcard having an expiry date after which it can no longer be used?

It would seem from reading various posts on this site that an expiry date is far to complicated for many users!

 

[yorkie]

It would seem from reading various posts on this site that an expiry date is far to complicated for many users!

And how do DB get around this, I wonder?

I suppose there is an argument to say people with recently expired Railcards should be treated with some leniency as if they likely made a legitimate mistake rather than attempted to avoid payment, but that's a customer service debate rather than a reason to 'simplify the system'.

 

[NARobertson]

225.9 euros for a single or a return? This is a flexible fare, valid at any time, with no discount for travelling off peak, is that right?

And yes they will have various different price points for Advance fares and various discounts; your opening post suggested we should have "one ticket type structure with no railcards" system.

What might I pay for journeys such as York to London, York to Whitby, York to Sheffield, under your proposed system?

I do say in this post 'out on Tuesday and back on Thursday', so it is a return fare valid on any train on those days. There is no discount for travelling off-peak because it can be used at peak times if you want but only on those two days. I quoted this fare rather than any of the lower priced options as this price could be the basis for a hypothetical flat fare system. It is well below the flexible London to Manchester fare somebody quoted.

Just as an aside, the other week I was sitting in a restaurant and the waitress said her daughter had spent 3 hours driving back from Swindon, 60 miles distant, on the previous Friday. I asked if she had considered going by train which is quicker. The reply was that she goes there three days a week and a daily return fare is £60, which she thought too high. (At one time weekly seasons were available for the price of two days' return fares I believe.) And what did her daughter do? She is a solicitor. My opinion: If lawyers can't afford train fares then they are too high.

 

[Hadders]

Many rail fares are extortionately priced but what many people misunderstand is that is a result of Government policy.

 

[NARobertson]

Probably true. I would imagine that the cut in airport duty on domestic flights announced in the budget today will be quite damaging to the railways on some long journeys. It is also a blow to environmentalists looking for cuts in CO2 to slow down climate change.

 

[6Gman]

In the middle of the last century the fares structure was a fixed change per mile up to 200 miles, after which the charge per mile gradually fell off. This was relatively simple, understandable by customers and avoided too many anomalies. Variations in demand were largely accounted for by adding more coaches to trains and by running relief trains. Controlling passenger flows by charging extortionate fares on some trains is basically passing the railway's problems onto passengers and, as such, is a symptom of a dysfunctional system.

And there were several reasons why that changed.

1. There was pressure to maximise revenue (the railways were losing money heavily);
2. It was felt that higher fares could/should be charged where services had been enhanced (e.g. by electrification);
3. It was realised that maintaining spare carriages (and locos) for occasional use at the peaks was very, very expensive - better to flatten the peaks by fares policy;
4. And the substantial increase in rail passenger traffic over the years suggests the policy has worked.

Incidentally if the trains already fill the platforms (e.g. on the commuter routes around London, and Pendolinos on the WCML) "adding more coaches" isn't an option, and if the timetable is full neither is "running relief trains".

 

[NARobertson]

For its first century rail travel was relatively cheap and until the end of the 19th century there was no competition to rail. However, there was always a cost of maintaining the infrastructure and this grew rapidly after WW2 as wages rose. Dearer trains have compounded this problem. Today rail is not competitive with cars and planes on a cost basis. Most who travel by train like rail travel or dislike the alternatives. Railways have reacted to this very unfavorable situation by an increasingly complicated fares structure offering a variety of cheaper fares but with a variety of disadvantages attached to them. This in turn has resulted in them employing a labor intensive structure to ensure compliance with restrictions on tickets plus fares dodgers. This covers ticket collectors, inspectors and staff at stations looking after barriers. The problem with this is that it drives up costs and fares even further. Coaches and planes have much lower costs here.

Spare carriages were used for other purposes than relieving overcrowding. At one time these were used for excursion trains, often to the seaside. This business still exists, but the Major government hived it off to a number of separate companies operating, for instance, steam and vintage diesel excursions. These specialist train companies tend to be more customer oriented than the main train companies. Many of the coaches no longer available to the main railway companies have lasted much longer than the usual railway life. The old railway excursions were often cheap and they probably attracted some people who did not normally travel by train who might have become future customers.

On the question of trains that are longer than platform length: at one time at various stations between Edinburgh and Aberdeen this problem existed and was met with by the practice of 'drawing up'. The train topped twice at different places. I recall this happening with a train at Kirkcaldy, which has relatively long platforms. The train required a 10 minute stop overall because of this procedure. This practice was not ideal: it took time and added to fuel costs but it was better than overcrowding.

The argument about charging more has some justification where things have been improved but might not apply where other forms of competing transport have also improved. Fares should also be reduced where the service has gotten worse though. For instance, the inferior Voyager trains operated by Cross-Country: compared with other stock these are cramped, have small seats that are too upright. The noise created by the diesel engines under the floor are also tiring on longer trips, much worse than on some other diesel multiple units.

 

[6Gman]

For its first century rail travel was relatively cheap

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

My impression (drawn from conversations with my parents and grandparents) is that rail travel was considered expensive by most people (who were on incomes which barely covered the necessities of life).

 

[The Planner]

This appears to be slowly morphing into a "Voyagers bad" and "this worked 60 years" ago discussion.

 

[6Gman]

On the question of trains that are longer than platform length: at one time at various stations between Edinburgh and Aberdeen this problem existed and was met with by the practice of 'drawing up'. The train topped twice at different places. I recall this happening with a train at Kirkcaldy, which has relatively long platforms. The train required a 10 minute stop overall because of this procedure. This practice was not ideal: it took time and added to fuel costs but it was better than overcrowding.

Since the longer trains are likely to be needed in busy areas drawing up would create havoc with line capacity.

And how can you draw up at Liverpool Lime Street (e.g.) ?

 

[NARobertson]

The stations I am talking about were intermediate stations. Termini in long stations should obviously be of adequate length. The shortening of platforms at Paddington was an own goal from the point of view of the railways.

 

[Dr Day]

This has been discussed on other threads, but the move away from Revenue Managers within franchises being essentially there to maximise profits for their owning groups should bring some reduction in complexity in relation to certain TOC-on-TOC specific fares, however there will still be a need for the industry as a whole or on a regional basis to maximise revenue relative to costs. This is still likely to mean capacity and and demand management measures including train-specific advances and busy time/less busy time differentials. There are probably things which the industry could do better in terms of making it easier for customers to buy the right ticket, but enforcement of having a ticket in the first place won't go away, and indeed may be seen as a 'quick win' in terms of GBR trying to bring in as much revenue as possible.

 

[NARobertson]

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

My impression (drawn from conversations with my parents and grandparents) is that rail travel was considered expensive by most people (who were on incomes which barely covered the necessities of life).

The people who lived in the past were poorer than those of today. Going back to before WW2 many people earned no more than £7000 pa in today's money. But many people did travel by train back then so it must have been cheaper in real terms than today. Of course, they traveled in the old 3rd class, not 2nd or 1st, which were not cheap.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2021 ==

This appears to be slowly morphing into a "Voyagers bad" and "this worked 60 years" ago discussion.

The Voyagers were originally introduced on the basis that they could tilt and therefore go faster round curves, thus reducing journey times. So there was a compromise between interior space and speed rather like on the APT. In the event they never have used their tilting ability, but the space disadvantage remains. Tilting trains do operate in Italy and Switzerland and have cut journey times on say the Gotthard route. The Voyagers also make very poor use of the space that is available, having long vestibules and spacious toilets at the ends of carriages. This wasted space is caused by the way that the doors open. I believe the space problem was not so bad when Richard Branson operated these trains, but when Cross-Country took over this franchise they put more seats in Standard Class. Again this was an example of a railway passing its own problems onto the passengers. Short fixed-formation trains have always been problematic if passenger numbers rose. Trains of similar design were offered as an option for the restocking of the East Coast Main Line but were rejected when it was realized that an extra coach would be needed (10 rather than 9) to carry the same number of seats. The Hitachi design was chosen, which makes better use of space.

 

[The Planner]

The Voyagers were originally introduced on the basis that they could tilt and therefore go faster round curves, thus reducing journey times. So there was a compromise between interior space and speed rather like on the APT. In the event they never have used their tilting ability, but the space disadvantage remains. Tilting trains do operate in Italy and Switzerland and have cut journey times on say the Gotthard route. The Voyagers also make very poor use of the space that is available, having long vestibules and spacious toilets at the ends of carriages. This wasted space is caused by the way that the doors open. I believe the space problem was not so bad when Richard Branson operated these trains, but when Cross-Country took over this franchise they put more seats in Standard Class. Again this was an example of a railway passing its own problems onto the passengers. Short fixed-formation trains have always been problematic if passenger numbers rose. Trains of similar design were offered as an option for the restocking of the East Coast Main Line but were rejected when it was realized that an extra coach would be needed (10 rather than 9) to carry the same number of seats. The Hitachi design was chosen, which makes better use of space.

I know the history of the Voyagers, and the lack of tilt only applies to the XC routes, not Avanti. But as I said before, we have done it many many times before, it has nothing to do with tickets.

 

[deltic]

For its first century rail travel was relatively cheap

This is not the case - rail fares relative to wages were extremely high. Although the data I have seen only goes back to 1920 it shows that the average rail fare per mile travelled fell steadily from the mid 1920s to the early 2000s when government policy changed and fares then increased faster than inflation at a time of stagnant wages. In relation to wages fares in the late 1940s, were twice the level they are now.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The people who lived in the past were poorer than those of today. Going back to before WW2 many people earned no more than £7000 pa in today's money. But many people did travel by train back then so it must have been cheaper in real terms than today. Of course, they traveled in the old 3rd class, not 2nd or 1st, which were not cheap.

It isn't that easy to make comparisons because Passenger Mile figures were not calculated for many years. Nevertheless, although there were a lot of passenger journeys back in the olden days these were typically rather short, often made on 'workmen's' tickets rather than season tickets, reflecting the rather more hand-to-mouth and seasonal/casual nature of a lot of work.

A long-distance rail trip was beyond many people's imagination. From the 1902 GWR timetable a 3rd Class Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington single was 11 shillings and fivepence halfpenny (about 57 'new' pence today). So a return would be £1 2s 11d. This would be more than an 'ordinary working man' such as a goods porter or ticket collector would earn in a week!

 

[NARobertson]

This is not the case - rail fares relative to wages were extremely high. Although the data I have seen only goes back to 1920 it shows that the average rail fare per mile travelled fell steadily from the mid 1920s to the early 2000s when government policy changed and fares then increased faster than inflation at a time of stagnant wages. In relation to wages fares in the late 1940s, were twice the level they are now.

But the normal course of events with new inventions and technologies is that they start off very expensive and only available to a few people, for example, cars, TVs and mobile phones, and end up quite cheap and affordable by most people. The history or rail fares does not show that progression. If you increase fares by RPI inflation + 3% year on year fares do become progressively more expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2021 ==

It isn't that easy to make comparisons because Passenger Mile figures were not calculated for many years. Nevertheless, although there were a lot of passenger journeys back in the olden days these were typically rather short, often made on 'workmen's' tickets rather than season tickets, reflecting the rather more hand-to-mouth and seasonal/casual nature of a lot of work.

A long-distance rail trip was beyond many people's imagination. From the 1902 GWR timetable a 3rd Class Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington single was 11 shillings and fivepence halfpenny (about 57 'new' pence today). So a return would be £1 2s 11d. This would be more than an 'ordinary working man' such as a goods porter or ticket collector would earn in a week!

Thanks for these figures. According to the Bank of England inflation calculator the price of that Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington return was something like £150 in today's money. The current anytime fare is about £243. It is also true that back in 1902 that only the richest of people could afford a car, but by the 1970s most people could. Rail travel was expensive then and it is still expensive now.

 

[deltic]

But the normal course of events with new inventions and technologies is that they start off very expensive and only available to a few people, for example, cars, TVs and mobile phones, and end up quite cheap and affordable by most people. The history or rail fares does not show that progression. If you increase fares by RPI inflation + 3% year on year fares do become progressively more expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2021 ==


Thanks for these figures. According to the Bank of England inflation calculator the price of that Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington return was something like £150 in today's money. The current anytime fare is about £243. It is also true that back in 1902 that only the richest of people could afford a car, but by the 1970s most people could. Rail travel was expensive then and it is still expensive now.

Rail fares have become cheaper for people relative to incomes except for the last decade and that is due to stagnant wages. The comparisons you are making are with physical items, not a service and have reduced in price due to automation leading to high levels of productivity. A better comparison is with air fares which have come down significantly in real terms. The question is could the railways achieve a similar improvement if they operated like the airlines. If they did the service they would offer would be very different to what we see today.

In looking at the 1902 example the difference is that the 3rd class single was the only fare available - except when the occasional excursion train was run. Today I can buy an off-peak return between London and Weston-Super-Mare for less than £80 and booking ahead by a week I can easily get a return for £60 so far cheaper than over 100 years ago. If there was a family of 2 adults and 2 children going on holiday to the seaside in 1902 the cost would have been £450 in today's money - with a family and friends railcard today it would be £134.60 just using off peak returns. So in that case fares have fallen by more than 2/3 thirds which is pretty impressive.