How to make the intercity fare system better.

[TravelDream]

The idea for this thread came from the Railways vs flying from London - Scotland thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...st-to-scotland-axis-of-services.223987/page-7)

I think it's clear that the current fare system just simply doesn't work.
The traditional peak/ off-peak fares put off many ordinary consumers with their high fares and complexity. Advance fares are a blunt instrument that fail to stimulate demand in the right areas at the right times. Peak time trains often leave with a fair amount of space whilst the first off-peak train is usually jam-packed. People on the cheapest advance fares get the pick of their seat whilst someone on the most expensive walk-up fare may need to stand all the way from London to Edinburgh.
Most critically, trains are just incredibly poor value compared to air fares. easyjet and BA both run multiple flights from five different London airports to both Edinburgh and Glasgow and are very often cheaper than the train (The argument of the 'convenience' of the train on these long jounreys is best kept for the thread above. Lots of arguments have been put forward, though it's clear that airports have the advantage in this area). This is simply beyond belief when you remember that airlines are heavily taxed and trains are heavily subsidized.
I am not talking short/ commuter journeys of-course, but routes where the train competes with airlines and motorway speed intercity coaches for sub 4 hours routes.

My idea is that the train companies should just emulate the airlines. Airlines are masters of revenue extraction. They know how much to charge to get the maximum revenue and the introduction of low-cost airlines and the changes mainline ones have made have revolutionized the industry. They know the importance of non-fare revenue. They know the importance of marketing and how 1p fares, which basically nobody gets, gets a ton of marketing and people talking. The railway on the other hand seems stuck in the 1960s.

Why not have fares from London to Edinburgh from 1p? Of course, not everyone would pay a penny, that vast majority would pay a lot more; but the idea of the penny fares excites the consumer and makes them think they are getting a good deal on the 'low-cost' railways.
Trains should be priced to fill them, just like Ryanair, easyjet, British Airways and basically every airline does.
Do forget about the additional revenue sources! Cheap seats don't come with a seat reservation, that costs extra. Want a window seat or a table seat? That costs more money for everyone. The quiet carriage? That also costs more. Wifi? That costs more. Food/ drinks from the trolley can be pre-sold etc.
I'm not totally radical though. The current peak fare should stay as a cap and season tickets should still be available.

This has no need to be cost neutral. Stimulating extra demand, taking people off other modes of transit and cars and improved revenue management should increase revenue (just as it has for airlines) and, thus, increase profitability/ reduce the need to subsidy.

No doubt someone will post below about the fallacy of one £200 fare is better than two £80 ones.
That's just a basic misunderstanding how airline pricing and true revenue management works. It's far better to have one £180 fare, two £90 fares + £10 seat reservations, one £30 fare + £6.50 meal deal than just that one £200 fare. It's even better to have ten £20 fares than one £200. Why? Better chances of more revenue extraction and upselling.

 

[JonathanH]

Why not have fares from London to Edinburgh from 1p?

Starting at £20 (or maybe even £25) is sufficient, particularly when railcard discounts apply on top. It needs to be at a level which doesn't lead to too many no shows.

Do forget about the additional revenue sources! Cheap seats don't come with a seat reservation, that costs extra. Want a window seat or a table seat? That costs more money for everyone. The quiet carriage? That also costs more. Wifi? That costs more. Food/ drinks from the trolley can be pre-sold etc.

Are you going to force people to sit in the seat they are allocated? What is the penalty for sitting in an unoccupied seat under your plan?

This has no need to be cost neutral. Stimulating extra demand, taking people off other modes of transit and cars and improved revenue management should increase revenue (just as it has for airlines) and, thus, increase profitability/ reduce the need to subsidy.

It kind of does, there is only finite capacity and the railways (and country) are broke / there are more pressing things to spend tax revenues on.

Advance fares are a blunt instrument that fail to stimulate demand in the right areas at the right times.

Aren't you advocating advance fares with your fares from 1p?

It's even better to have ten £20 fares than one £200. Why? Better chances of more revenue extraction and upselling.

Dream on - the revenues from upsetting simply don't replace fare revenue.

 

[tbtc]

Advance fares are a blunt instrument that fail to stimulate demand in the right areas at the right times

But isn't this what you are asking for. with your suggestions for discounted tickets?

Peak time trains often leave with a fair amount of space

Because that maximises revenue (in theory)

Why not have fares from London to Edinburgh from 1p?

If Ryanair sell a 1p fare from London to Edinburgh then it's only going to be used between London and Edinburgh - nobody is going to start short/ stop short

If there's a 1p fare on a train from London to Edinburgh then how do you stop people buying it for shorter journeys en route?

Trains can't achieve the kind of market segregation that plans can (because they can't segregate passengers in the same way)

There's also the problem that such cheap offers devalue the rest of the product - tickets that currently seem reasonably priced will seem a rip off when people see that they could travel four hundred miles for a penny (even if those penny fares are incredibly rare)

The current peak fare should stay as a cap and season tickets should still be available

So there should be lots of cheap fares (from 1p), but no fares should increase?

This feels like another thread of "I want this thing, therefore it should happen" (like the suggestions we abandon peak fares - there seems to be a trend on here for such things recently)

No doubt someone will post below about the fallacy of one £200 fare is better than two £80 ones.
That's just a basic misunderstanding how airline pricing and true revenue management works. It's far better to have one £180 fare, two £90 fares + £10 seat reservations, one £30 fare + £6.50 meal deal than just that one £200 fare. It's even better to have ten £20 fares than one £200. Why? Better chances of more revenue extraction and upselling.

If there's sufficient capacity then, sure, it'd be better to have (£180 + £90 + £90 + £10 + £30 + £6.50 =) over four hundred quid's worth of revenue than "just" £200

But there isn't always capacity for that many passengers - plus you'd have to "upsell" a lot of cups of coffee to make up the difference in ticket revenue - as well as the fact that cutting the fare from £200 to £20 doesn't guarantee that ten people will buy tickets (it might just mean that the person who previously bought the £200 ticket now buys a £20 ticket)

 

[TravelDream]

Starting at £20 (or maybe even £25) is sufficient, particularly when railcard discounts apply on top. It needs to be at a level which doesn't lead to too many no shows.

Are you going to force people to sit in the seat they are allocated? What is the penalty for sitting in an unoccupied seat under your plan?

It kind of does, there is only finite capacity and the railways (and country) are broke / there are more pressing things to spend tax revenues on.

Aren't you advocating advance fares with your fares from 1p?

I don't mean to be unkind, but you've totally missed the point.
1) Why do airlines have such a large market share? Why do so many people think the railways are expensive and poor value for money?
2) Obviously not. People can choose not to reserve a seat and then they may sit in any free seat. Airline's experiences show that many consumers like the pre-book seats and are willing to pay for it.
3) You've misunderstood. Read again. I said that this idea would not be cost neutral as it would increase revenue/ lower the required subsidy. If trains are bursting, the average fare level is obviously too low and average fares need to increase. 1p is a marketing gimmick more than a genuine price point.
4) I'm advocating abolishing advance fares and bringing in dynamic pricing like airlines use. The 21st century is scary, but we can't live in the 80s forever.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2021 ==

I'll be honest, there's a lot I disagree with in your post. It's not really what I want, but trying to bring the railway into the modern world and to stimulate demand, better compete with competitors etc.

Trains can't achieve the kind of market segregation that plans can (because they can't segregate passengers in the same way)

This is one issue that is a true problem with the idea. In reality, not too many people are going to check to see if a longer journey is cheaper, but it is certainly one that would need to be thought through.

There's also the problem that such cheap offers devalue the rest of the product - tickets that currently seem reasonably priced will seem a rip off when people see that they could travel four hundred miles for a penny (even if those penny fares are incredibly rare)

Don't airlines face the same issue. You bought your ticket to Rome on BA 6 months ago during a sale. You paid £50 return. The guy next to you spent £350 for a single.
Do you honestly think everyone on Ryanair pays low fares? There are many who have paid several hundred pounds + extras for baggage and seats. If there weren't, the airline wouldn't make money.
Consumers are used to it.

But there isn't always capacity for that many passengers - plus you'd have to "upsell" a lot of cups of coffee to make up the difference in ticket revenue - as well as the fact that cutting the fare from £200 to £20 doesn't guarantee that ten people will buy tickets (it might just mean that the person who previously bought the £200 ticket now buys a £20 ticket)

But that is what advanced revenue management is all about. TOCs basically don't have a true revenue management system whilst airlines are masters of the game.

 

[stuu]

Most critically, trains are just incredibly poor value compared to air fares. easyjet and BA both run multiple flights from five different London airports to both Edinburgh and Glasgow and are very often cheaper than the train (The argument of the 'convenience' of the train on these long jounreys is best kept for the thread above. Lots of arguments have been put forward, though it's clear that airports have the advantage in this area). This is simply beyond belief when you remember that airlines are heavily taxed and trains are heavily subsidized.

Long distance trains are generally not subsidised. Air passengers pay taxes but I very much doubt any airlines with decent accountants will be paying much in the way of tax in the next few years.

An important factor to bear in mind is that a railway needs hundreds of miles of very expensive infrastructure, often in the middle of nowhere. Airlines need a couple of miles of very intensively used infrastructure and some radar stations, the costs of which are fairly low per passenger

What is the difference between advance fares and dynamic pricing? Train companies do use yield management, in that each train will have a certain amount of tickets at each price level depending on demand and time of day etc in exactly the same way as airlines do. If no one wants to travel then the tickets can be very cheap, I have had a Somerset-London ticket for £16 on a Tuesday evening

 

[JonathanH]

1) Why do airlines have such a large market share? Why do so many people think the railways are expensive and poor value for money?

What do they have a large market share of? Anything that involves travelling overseas granted. People think railways are expensive and poor value for money when they use them for commuting or need to travel at popular times.

A flight from Heathrow to Edinburgh at peak (airline) times isn't exactly cheap or good value either.

2) Obviously not. People can choose not to reserve a seat and then they may sit in any free seat. Airline's experiences show that many consumers like the pre-book seats and are willing to pay for it.

Where is the upselling facility if you are not going to make the cheapest fares heavily restrictive? Consumers like to pre-book seats if they think their travelling party is going to be split up. On a train, my guess is that some people don't like sitting backwards and don't want to stand up but few actually get worried about the actual seat allocation as much as on a plane.

3) You've misunderstood. Read again. I said that this idea would not be cost neutral as it would increase revenue/ lower the required subsidy. If trains are bursting, the average fare level is obviously too low and average fares need to increase. 1p is a marketing gimmick more than a genuine price point.

It will only increase revenue if more people travel and we already manage to fill trains at current fare levels. Gimmicks of 1p don't make sense and as 'tbtc' points out devalue the product and the other fares.

4) I'm advocating abolishing advance fares and bringing in dynamic pricing like airlines use. The 21st century is scary, but we can't live in the 80s forever.

Advance fares are dynamic pricing. They just aren't presented that way. I think the railway stands the risk of being accused of profiteering if it puts up prices based on demand to too great an extent.

A lot of what 'tbtc' posted, as ever with their comments, was right on the mark about market segmentation and how the railway can't set fares in exactly the same way as airlines.

 

[TravelDream]

Long distance trains are generally not subsidised. Air passengers pay taxes but I very much doubt any airlines with decent accountants will be paying much in the way of tax in the next few years.

Every domestic return fare has £26 in Air Passenger Duty that can't be accounted away. Corporation tax, you're right.

A flight from Heathrow to Edinburgh at peak (airline) times isn't exactly cheap or good value either.

Not wanting to repeat that other thread, but this simply isn't the case. A same-day return tomorrow on the airlines is likely substantially cheaper than a comparable railfare.
A morning up to Edinburgh and evening back to London can be had for less than £150 with a full business day in Edinburgh. The comparable journey by train will be well over £200.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But is that just saying "rail is too expensive", not "the fare structure is faulty"?

 

[JonathanH]

A morning up to Edinburgh and evening back to London can be had for less than £150 with a full business day in Edinburgh. The comparable journey by train will be well over £200.

Not from Heathrow though and depending on where you live and where you are going in Edinburgh there will be further transportation costs. Even at £150 many would consider that expensive and look for a different travel time but penny fares aren't the correct response for that segment of the market.

If Lumo proves to be a success, it could well take traffic from the airlines at £69 each way which will be broadly consistent with this part of the airline market.

 

[stuu]

A same-day return tomorrow on the airlines is likely substantially cheaper than a comparable railfare.

Why shouldn't it be?

What is the comparative cost of providing each journey? As I said previously, planes have nothing like the infrastructure to maintain... added to which a 737/A320 will do maybe 5 or 6 different return trips per day, a train between London and Scotland certainly won't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of this comes back to "Anytime fares are too expensive", doesn't it? I question how these can be justified in a world of reduced business travel.

 

[TravelDream]

Why shouldn't it be?

What is the comparative cost of providing each journey? As I said previously, planes have nothing like the infrastructure to maintain... added to which a 737/A320 will do maybe 5 or 6 different return trips per day, a train between London and Scotland certainly won't.

Interesting point.
I am not sure airlines have lower costs than the railway though.
Firstly, £26 of that domestic ticket is going straight to the taxman.
Then, aircraft are expensive. Very expensive. An A320NEO like BA or easyjet might fly has a list price of $110 million USD. Obviously, big orders like those placed by BA and easyjet don't pay list price, but they aren't cheap machines. Then there's the fuel consumption. The cost of which is much higher for airlines. That A320NEO will consumer about 2.8kg of fuel per km at cruise (airlines work in kg not litres are volume can change radically due to temperature and pressure changes) with substantially more required for climb. Jet A1 has surged in price too recently.
Then you have terminal usage fees, landing fees, air traffic services fees and more. They'll come to thousands of dollars on a London to Edinburgh run.
Airlines are obliged to have a minimum of one cabin crew per 50 passengers meaning four on an A320 plus two pilots. That's six staff per 150-180 passengers. Plus all the ground staff which will be tied up for the good part of 30-90 minutes per flight.

Running an airline ain't cheap is what I am trying to say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing about air travel, though, is that the air is free. There's no infrastructure to maintain other than the airports at both ends and air traffic control. This economy becomes more of an economy the longer the route is, which may be part of the reason there are no London-Brum flights and hardly any London-Manchester.

 

[TravelDream]

The thing about air travel, though, is that the air is free. There's no infrastructure to maintain other than the airports at both ends and air traffic control. This economy becomes more of an economy the longer the route is, which may be part of the reason there are no London-Brum flights and hardly any London-Manchester.

It's not as you need to pay NATS significant sums for usage of said airspace. Rather than being a blackhole of government subsidy*, airways are seen as a profit making opportunity by government.

*I want to say that whilst this sounds anti-rail, I am actually radically pro-rail. We should not be flying from London to Edinburgh/ Glasgow. The threat to our environment means we need zero/ low emitting solutions like the railway. As such, significant government investment should be put into railway infrastructure and service (HS4 if you like) to ensure aviation is not competitive on these routes. Yes, this is total fantasy, but is what is required if we are really going cut emissions dramatically as the government claims to want. Some of the stuff posted on this thread actually saddens me in relation to this.

Not from Heathrow though and depending on where you live and where you are going in Edinburgh there will be further transportation costs. Even at £150 many would consider that expensive and look for a different travel time but penny fares aren't the correct response for that segment of the market.

1) Not everyone lives or works next to Waverley station. Many people who arrive there will need onward transportation. Often it will be by the tram which also serves the airport. Also, far more live near London airports than do Kings Cross. Therefore it's reasonable to assume rail has higher onward costs in London than airports.
2) BA is a traditional airline. Low fares (well below £150) are avaialable if you book a few weeks ahead, but their yield management has shown busineses are willing to pay top dollar if a flight is booked in the few days before a flight. They believe they maximise revenue by charging this sum and they are probably right.
3) Most people realise if you look at 10pm the night before, peak time flights are going to be pricey. £150 is actually a pretty good deal for a same day return in those circumstances in my opinion. Less good value is the £400 rail ticket bought months in advance.

 

[Starmill]

I think your main problem is actually with the costs that traditional franchised TOCs face - rates of pay and Railway Pension, staff ratios and lack of cross-working or even smaller things like premium rates of overtime or short working weeks etc etc. Not the actual fares structure.

Airlines are rather more commercially focused in their cost utilisation than any franchised TOCs are.

 

[yorkie]

Features of airline fares, in my experience:

• A few fares are much cheaper than rail fares
• Prices fluctuate and can frequently go down, as well as up
• The general trend is up and fares just before travel can be prohibitively expensive
• Tickets for travel at specific times cannot be excessed and are worthless if you choose not to travel at that time
• Almost no concept of a semi-flexible fare
• Flexible fares can exist but are prohibitively expensive and not used by ordinary passengers
• Generally no flexibility to use other airlines (yes exceptions do exist)

Is that really what we want for rail fares?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2021 ==

I think it's clear that the current fare system just simply doesn't work.
The traditional peak/ off-peak fares put off many ordinary consumers with their high fares and complexity.

In other words, make people choose between fixed train only, or fully flexible, with no in between, on the basis that it is simpler to either say the ticket is valid at one time or any time?

Advance fares are a blunt instrument that fail to stimulate demand in the right areas at the right times.

Only if the pricing team are rubbish at their job

Peak time trains often leave with a fair amount of space whilst the first off-peak train is usually jam-packed.

Not on operators who get the pricing and yield management right. I agree most train companies are worse at this than most airlines, but changing the fare structure to ditch semi-flexible fares is not the solution and does nothing to address this issue.

People on the cheapest advance fares get the pick of their seat whilst someone on the most expensive walk-up fare may need to stand all the way from London to Edinburgh.

Is your plan to make people pay to choose their seat, or not give Advance ticket holders a seat reservation, or disallow flexible fares being used without a reservation, or some combination of these?

 

[TravelDream]

• A few fares are much cheaper than rail fares
• Prices fluctuate and can frequently go down, as well as up
• The general trend is up and fares just before travel can be prohibitively expensive
• Tickets for travel at specific times cannot be excessed and are worthless if you choose not to travel at that time
• Almost no concept of a semi-flexible fare

On the London-Edinburgh/Glasgow route, airfares I'd say are almost always cheaper than rail ones. That's hardly the definition of a few. Fares going up and down is a feature, not a negative. It shows the airlines responding to demand to maximise revenue. For the third point, see my answer to the first and post above. Last night at 10pm, the cheapest way to get to Edniburgh today for a full-business day was by plane - and it was substantially cheaper. Almost all airline tickets are 'semi-flexibile' so I don't see where you get that idea. Even those sold by Ryanair. They can be changed, but for a fee. That seems reasonable to me. Some airlines have less and more semi-flexible fares (i.e. more expensive to change and cheaper to change).

• Generally no flexibility to use other airlines (yes exceptions do exist)

I think this depends on if you want a national ticketing system where flexiblity would obviously exist, or a TOC only one. I don't want the latter, but it is where we are creeping to in this country. Especially with this nonsense, a few pence cheaper, TOC only fares.

In other words, make people choose between fixed train only, or fully flexible, with no in between, on the basis that it is simpler to either say the ticket is valid at one time or any time?

Yes. Though fixed tickets could still be changed for a fee + fare difference.

Is your plan to make people pay to choose their seat, or not give Advance ticket holders a seat reservation, or disallow flexible fares being used without a reservation, or some combination of these?

Just like on the airlines.
Fully-flexible ticket holders can pick their seats for free, but not the premium seats. Discount ticket holders have to pay a fee to pick a seat. Premium seats like those with extra legroom, quiet carriages, tables etc. would cost more than a window pillar seat. Those without a seat reservation would just take any free unreserved seat on boarding. The airlines have found many people are more than willing to pay for a seat of their choice rather than take a risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually would happily pay a few quid for a good quality seat selector, i.e. one that showed the relative positions of seat and window so I can ensure a decent window seat. As a tall person I'd also consider a small sum for extra legroom in Standard, though these would have to be in addition to priority seats, the downside of these being that even if reserved they must be given up if someone needs it more, and I do prefer a more reasonable First Class fare for just the "hard product" as per Avanti's Standard Premium.

There's another good reason, particularly if you have compulsory reservations, to make seat selection chargeable - as the train gets full, you want to allocate reservations in the most efficient manner and only do otherwise when someone really, really wants it. For instance if you've got 2 seats left on A-B-C, one reserved A-B and one not reserved, if someone comes along you really want to "nudge" them to accept the first, because if they took the second a passenger wanting A-C could not be accommodated at all. Or otherwise, if you've got 2 pairs of seats left and 2 people book individually, you make best use of seats if you put them together, as then if a couple comes along they can be accommodated.

 

[Starmill]

Just like on the airlines.
Fully-flexible ticket holders can pick their seats for free, but not the premium seats. Discount ticket holders have to pay a fee to pick a seat. Premium seats like those with extra legroom, quiet carriages, tables etc. would cost more than a window pillar seat. Those without a seat reservation would just take any free unreserved seat on boarding. The airlines have found many people are more than willing to pay for a seat of their choice rather than take a risk.

So you would charge for the reservation but not the actual right to sit in the specific seat?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you would charge for the reservation but not the actual right to sit in the specific seat?

That's sort of how the low cost airlines do it in that you can be allocated a premium seat for no extra charge if you're very lucky, as it's the only one left.

Ensuring a seat of a particular type is quite valuable, because otherwise there's the stress of possibly not getting it, and it might be valuable, e.g. extra legroom for a tall person or a table for the large work laptop. I prefer paying on a flight than having to show up early and risk whether the check-in agent is in a good mood, definitely.

FWIW, I wouldn't overly see an issue with a more airline like situation of "if you pay for seat selection you can download your e-ticket on booking, if not seats are allocated one week out and you can download it then" - that makes a much better use of seats, too, as you know who you have and what journeys they are making, and it encourages selectors to do it early so the others can then be efficiently slotted in around them. This I believe is how easyJet does it.

 

[mrcheek]

The best way to deal with the rail fares v airline fares issue would be to start with the media, who always seem to want to compare the highest rail fare, with the lowest air fare......

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best way to deal with the rail fares v airline fares issue would be to start with the media, who always seem to want to compare the highest rail fare, with the lowest air fare......

One advantage of the present pseudocompulsory reservations is that they will no longer be shown Anytime fares for an unreleased train in 3 months' time, which is one key thing that leads to this.

 

[TravelDream]

The best way to deal with the rail fares v airline fares issue would be to start with the media, who always seem to want to compare the highest rail fare, with the lowest air fare......

This is just totally wrong. As many have said on this thread and others, airfares on certain routes are almost always cheaper than rail ones. Just look a few posts above for an example.

 

[yorkie]

On the London-Edinburgh/Glasgow route, airfares I'd say are almost always cheaper than rail ones. That's hardly the definition of a few. Fares going up and down is a feature, not a negative. It shows the airlines responding to demand to maximise revenue. For the third point, see my answer to the first and post above. Last night at 10pm, the cheapest way to get to Edniburgh today for a full-business day was by plane - and it was substantially cheaper.

The question regarding whether rail fares should be cheaper than plane fares is arguably a separate discussion; the short answer is that I am sure most people will agree they should be.

But that can be done without changing the fare structure; that's a separate matter.

Almost all airline tickets are 'semi-flexibile' so I don't see where you get that idea. Even those sold by Ryanair. They can be changed, but for a fee. That seems reasonable to me. Some airlines have less and more semi-flexible fares (i.e. more expensive to change and cheaper to change).

We're into semantecs now; you appear to be proposing off-peak fares due to their complexity, favouring fares that are either restricted to one service (with a change being possible, perhaps with a fee, but no freedom to simply get another off peak service without faffing about).

I think this depends on if you want a national ticketing system where flexiblity would obviously exist, or a TOC only one. I don't want the latter, but it is where we are creeping to in this country. Especially with this nonsense, a few pence cheaper, TOC only fares.

That's a separate argument; you were earlier arguing agains fares with complex restrictions. Restricting tickets to a specific operator doesn't seem that complicated to me, but if you want to abolish such fares, we can have that debate; it's been done before though and my view remains unchanged

Yes. Though fixed tickets could still be changed for a fee + fare difference.

Do people who currently buy off peak fares want the faff of having to pay fees to change tickets? Or do they benefit the flexibility of getting on any valid train?

Just like on the airlines.
Fully-flexible ticket holders can pick their seats for free, but not the premium seats. Discount ticket holders have to pay a fee to pick a seat. Premium seats like those with extra legroom, quiet carriages, tables etc. would cost more than a window pillar seat. Those without a seat reservation would just take any free unreserved seat on boarding. The airlines have found many people are more than willing to pay for a seat of their choice rather than take a risk.

You earlier said the system was complex. Surely adding fees for seats would add to complexity, not reduce it?

Every so often people suggest changing the fares system, but I am yet to see a set of proposals that ticks all the boxes. This one doesn't seem to tick any of them for me.

 

[TravelDream]

The question regarding whether rail fares should be cheaper than plane fares is arguably a separate discussion; the short answer is that I am sure most people will agree they should be.

But that can be done without changing the fare structure; that's a separate matter.

Totally agree with the first point, but the second one is just impossible. There is no way to do it in a cost-neutral way and there is no appetite in government to increase the subsidy for it to be done despite their green rhetoric.

You earlier said the system was complex. Surely adding fees for seats would add to complexity, not reduce it?

I think our ideas on complexity are rather different.
When you have peak/ off-peak/ super off-peak all with varying definitions of peak, TOC only tickets, via London/ not via London/ via XYZ etc. etc. that is incredible complexity for Joe public. Yes, anoraks and experts will know every rule, but I am talking about ordinary people.
Adding 'extras' isn't complex as basically everyone knows how it works. Cinemas have premium seats, online shopping companies charge more for a short time slot delivery than a long one, airlines have been doing it for years, even coach companies are trying to get into the game.

 

[yorkie]

Totally agree with the first point, but the second one is just impossible. There is no way to do it in a cost-neutral way and there is no appetite in government to increase the subsidy for it to be done despite their green rhetoric.

There are separate issues here; I do not see how the fares structure needs to change in order to have more affordable Advance fares.

You are right that for fares to reducem it would require more subsidy.

I think our ideas on complexity are rather different.

Indeed; many people have ideas to make fares simpler, but they actually make things more complicated for some people, or they add cost, or require subsidy, or a combination of these.

When you have peak/ off-peak/ super off-peak all with varying definitions of peak, TOC only tickets, via London/ not via London/ via XYZ etc. etc. that is incredible complexity for Joe public. Yes, anoraks and experts will know every rule, but I am talking about ordinary people.

You could say that all tickets are Anytime and valid via any permitted route and without reducing the current level of flexibility, but how would you price that?

Adding 'extras' isn't complex as basically everyone knows how it works. Cinemas have premium seats, online shopping companies charge more for a short time slot delivery than a long one, airlines have been doing it for years, even coach companies are trying to get into the game.

What sort of charges do you have in mind?

 

[deltic]

There are a number of issues here.

1) rail fares are regulated, minimum service standards are imposed in terms of frequency, first and last trains even provision of catering and provision of first class as well as disabled accessible toilets.
2) the train companies would like to introduce the type of fare structures the OP outlines but due to the regulated system cannot
3) unlike airlines, trains stop at a number of stations on route and carry short distance as well as long distance passengers - managing passenger loads and minimising revenue abstraction then becomes difficult without compulsory reservations for all journeys on the service
4) introducing a true yield management fare system would lead to complaints about even more complicated rail fares
5) headline airfares are not always what you end up paying if you want to sit together, take luggage with you etc so comparisons are often false - I want to travel to Edinburgh from London tomorrow for a meeting the fares by rail available today are in line with headline figures for Easyjet and lower than BA's
6) airlines are heavily subsidised through airport duty free sales (and hence lower airport charges) which is the most bizarre tax exemption there is as it goes to the wealthiest in society plus not having to pay duty on fuel. Most airports are shopping malls with large car parks and a runway attached - the former generates the revenue not the latter.
7) whether airfares are poor value compared to rail fares depends on your origin and destination ie the cost and time of getting to and from the rail station vis a vis the airport

 

[Bletchleyite]

When you have peak/ off-peak/ super off-peak all with varying definitions of peak, TOC only tickets, via London/ not via London/ via XYZ etc. etc. that is incredible complexity for Joe public. Yes, anoraks and experts will know every rule, but I am talking about ordinary people.

One aspect of journey planners, particularly ones that can look for splits as well, is that the passenger doesn't have to understand the fares system, it will calculate the cheapest way to do the desired journey and issue it as one booking. The one piece of complication that hampers this is return tickets. If we could move to single-fare pricing throughout the network, then journey planners will always get you the best deal for your desired trains.

In many ways, if you make this simplification, you don't need to worry about any of the others.

 

[TravelDream]

You could say that all tickets are Anytime and valid via any permitted route and without reducing the current level of flexibility, but how would you price that?

That would be a far worse model than now and is exactly what shouldn't be done. People traveling on busier trains should pay more to maximize revenue extraction. People traveling on quieter trains should pay less to encourage more to travel on said trains and, thus, maximize revenue extraction. That's basic yield management.

5) headline airfares are not always what you end up paying if you want to sit together, take luggage with you etc so comparisons are often false - I want to travel to Edinburgh from London tomorrow for a meeting the fares by rail available today are in line with headline figures for Easyjet and lower than BA's

True for the first point.
The second point isn't. I just checked for tomorrow and I can fly for well over £50 less than take the train for morning peak up and evening peak back down.
The luggage thing is a bit of a fallacy too. Most people on a domestic trip carry hand luggage sized bags. Many people are simply unable to haul their own heavy suitcases on and off trains and prefer airline staff to do that for them.

6) airlines are heavily subsidised through airport duty free sales (and hence lower airport charges) which is the most bizarre tax exemption there is as it goes to the wealthiest in society plus not having to pay duty on fuel. Most airports are shopping malls with large car parks and a runway attached - the former generates the revenue not the latter.

Don't forget airports in this country are run for a profit and that some major train stations are not too dissimilar.

What sort of charges do you have in mind?

Booking seats (with premium seats like those with more legroom and next to a table costing more), quiet carriages, pre-booking food and drinks, wifi usage etc. etc. There are many things that sufficient people are willing to pay extra for that would make business sense..

 

[Starmill]

That would be a far worse model than now and is exactly what shouldn't be done. People traveling on busier trains should pay more to maximize revenue extraction. People traveling on quieter trains should pay less to encourage more to travel on said trains and, thus, maximize revenue extraction. That's basic yield management.

It's not though.

You're describing a system optimised for loading while espousing a system optimised for revenue. The current models in use are invariably some compromise between these objectives. However, you must accept a trade-off. If you want "smoother" loadings, that's likely to result in a slight drop in revenue. It'd be easy to increase revenue (and cost utilisation!) tomorrow by tolerating higher loading.l on some trains. But obviously that comes at the expense of passenger experience.

Airline comparisons are as always unhelpful. Aircraft are rated to carry a maximum permitted number while trains aren't.