suggestion to make a compulsory surcharge for paper ticket if e-ticket is available

[JonathanH]

So it cheaper to split up a journey like Reading to York for example.
If you are traveling on a 10am train from Kings Cross, the fare from Reading into London Will be more than the advance from Kings Cross

There is no guarantee that you will be able to get a quota on the train from Reading to Paddington at that time and indeed the quota available on GWR may push up the through fare more than the quota available on LNER.

PAYG helps with this as it is priced on a single leg basis.

However, I'd imagine that the numbers of passengers on the 10am from Kings Cross who have come from Reading is dwarfed by those from nearer to London for whom the cost of getting to Kings Cross is less than the increment on a through fare.

There is no excuse for TfL not to install e readers at it's NR stations.

The problem appears to be the timeline gap between the introduction of PAYG over a wider area and the desire to abolish CCST tickets. If the extension of PAYG had happened sooner, TfL could have opted out of accepting through fares beyond that area and relied solely on Oyster / Contactless at its stations (which is clearly what they would like) with passengers rebooting as appropriate. TfL are kind of caught in between the acceptance of e-tickets, operating stations well outside of their usual area and a massive desire to standardise on Oyster and Contactless.

If you see the problem from TfL's side, once PAYG is extended, travelcards as we know them are abolished in favour of capping and potentially through tickets are no longer issued for underground travel, spending money on barcode readers, with slower throughput of passengers, isn't a good use of scarce funding.

 

[Devonian]

The idea posted here won't happen

But e-tickets are going to take over; you will be able to pay for them in cash and obtain a printed copy, or buy them online and print them yourself, or store them on any device.

The criticism I would have is that it would be a shame not to offer the ability for such fares bought online to be printed from a TVM. Also a minor point but this should arguably be on credit card size stock rather than the annoying till roll format.

The size is important not just for the practicality of putting a ticket in a wallet, but also if you want to save the trees: an e-ticket printed at home on A4 uses the same area of paper as 13 credit-card size tickets. This is hardly good news for the environment. The till roll format could have been designed to use smaller paper stock - the same info, including barcode, is quite able to printed on card-size ticket stock - and was rather a missed opportunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The size is important not just for the practicality of putting a ticket in a wallet, but also if you want to save the trees: an e-ticket printed at home on A4 uses the same area of paper as 13 credit-card size tickets. This is hardly good news for the environment.

Actually, it's better - simple A4 is fully recyclable, thermal magstripe tickets are not universally so as they are mixed-material.

The till roll format could have been designed to use smaller paper stock - the same info, including barcode, is quite able to printed on card-size ticket stock - and was rather a missed opportunity.

I'd agree with that. SBB (Switzerland) issues some tickets on thermal "bog roll" and they are a similar size to the card ones.

That said I don't agree about fitting in a wallet - bog roll tickets fit fine in the notes slot (just as the old large-format pink and blue CIV ATB format tickets did) and if anything are going to be harder to lose/drop than a CCST sized bit of paper like bus companies issue.

 

[Grumpy]

As paper ticket is so archaic that the industry wants to move away from it, I have a suggestion to speed up the process, that if an e-ticket is available for the flow, a compulsory £1 paper ticket surcharge should be charged if the ticket is bought from a ticket machine, collected from a ticket machine, bought from the office or on train (applicable to origin stations without ticketing facilities as well).

As others have suggested, expressing it this way will simply alienate and drive away lots of customers.
However by saying something along the lines of "this is the fare but save x%(or whatever) by buying an e-ticket"
could have the motivational effect you seek.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As others have suggested, expressing it this way will simply alienate and drive away lots of customers.
However by saying something along the lines of "this is the fare but save x%(or whatever) by buying an e-ticket"
could have the motivational effect you seek.

There may be more of a case for a ToD fee when buying online. Some sales sites already do that.

I'm less convinced that buying from a TVM should be penalised.

 

[cactustwirly]

There is no guarantee that you will be able to get a quota on the train from Reading to Paddington at that time and indeed the quota available on GWR may push up the through fare more than the quota available on LNER.

PAYG helps with this as it is priced on a single leg basis.

However, I'd imagine that the numbers of passengers on the 10am from Kings Cross who have come from Reading is dwarfed by those from nearer to London for whom the cost of getting to Kings Cross is less than the increment on a through fare.


The problem appears to be the timeline gap between the introduction of PAYG over a wider area and the desire to abolish CCST tickets. If the extension of PAYG had happened sooner, TfL could have opted out of accepting through fares beyond that area and relied solely on Oyster / Contactless at its stations (which is clearly what they would like) with passengers rebooting as appropriate. TfL are kind of caught in between the acceptance of e-tickets, operating stations well outside of their usual area and a massive desire to standardise on Oyster and Contactless.

If you see the problem from TfL's side, once PAYG is extended, travelcards as we know them are abolished in favour of capping and potentially through tickets are no longer issued for underground travel, spending money on barcode readers, with slower throughput of passengers, isn't a good use of scarce funding.

GWR don't have quotas for Reading to London fares?
A significant amount of home counties to the north journeys will go via London. A through advance is very much desirable as it avoids the need to use very expensive anytime tickets to get to London. Or else people will just drive.
It should be about making the railway attractive rather than operational convenience.

TfL now stretches out into Berkshire, where lots of people will be using e tickets. So I don't know why you're talking about PAYG. That already exists, but is useless for through journeys or if you are traveling with a railcard

 

[JonathanH]

GWR don't have quotas for Reading to London fares?

While there aren't advance fares between Reading and London, the main line GWR trains are reservable by virtue of their long-distance nature. Therefore, an advance fare between Reading and York via London needs a quota for the journey between Reading and Paddington. (This doesn't apply on trains formed of 387s but it does on just about everything else.)

TfL now stretches out into Berkshire, where lots of people will be using e tickets. So I don't know why you're talking about PAYG. That already exists, but is useless for through journeys or if you are traveling with a railcard

The extension of PAYG will mean it is valid for more through journeys crossing London, while not for very long distance ones admittedly.

I would imagine that most people travelling east of Reading to London and intermediate stations are now using Contactless because it is more convenient than e-tickets and paper tickets.

 

[Devonian]

Actually, it's better - simple A4 is fully recyclable, thermal magstripe tickets are not universally so as they are mixed-material.

I am well aware of the recycling problem, but the mag. stripe is a separate issue: there is no reason that barcoded tickets could not be printed on recyclable card-sized stock in future.

That said I don't agree about fitting in a wallet - bog roll tickets fit fine in the notes slot (just as the old large-format pink and blue CIV ATB format tickets did) and if anything are going to be harder to lose/drop than a CCST sized bit of paper like bus companies issue.

But wouldn't it be nice if they fitted in railcard wallets without taking up two slots or having to be folded...

 

[mmh]

I am well aware of the recycling problem

There is no recycling problem. They end up in your toilet roll tubes and cardboard boxes, as does every paper-like thing you put in your household recycling.

 

[cactustwirly]

While there aren't advance fares between Reading and London, the main line GWR trains are reservable by virtue of their long-distance nature. Therefore, an advance fare between Reading and York via London needs a quota for the journey between Reading and Paddington. (This doesn't apply on trains formed of 387s but it does on just about everything else.)


The extension of PAYG will mean it is valid for more through journeys crossing London, while not for very long distance ones admittedly.

I would imagine that most people travelling east of Reading to London and intermediate stations are now using Contactless because it is more convenient than e-tickets and paper tickets.

Reading to London was an example, there are plenty of others which involve non reservable services. A through advance is a significant saving over separate tickets in this case. As you say there are also plenty of 387 services that can be taken.

PAYG is useless for connecting journeys (ie beyond Reading or branch stations) or people with children or railcards.
The peak restrictions are different so it ends up overcharging you in certain circumstances as well. As peak fares on this route can be double the off peak fare this is significant.

The trainline will retail e tickets, but TfL barriers are not equipped to deal with them.
They should be mandatory on all National Rail station regardless of operator