What is it about the fare structure that make splitting tickets cheaper?

[al78]

I'm curious as to why splitting a ticket ends up cheaper than a single through ticket. For example, I work in London once a week and buy a return from Horsham to Farringdon at peak time. This costs £49 for an anytime return. If I ask for the return with a split at Gatwick, it costs £33 despite both portions of the split needing to be anytime. Is there a simple explanation for this? I am aware I have to catch trains which stop at Gatwick, but that isn't an issue as all the trains I could feasibly catch stop at Gatwick.

 

[yorkie]

I'm curious as to why splitting a ticket ends up cheaper than a single through ticket. For example, I work in London once a week and buy a return from Horsham to Farringdon at peak time. This costs £49 for an anytime return. If I ask for the return with a split at Gatwick, it costs £33 despite both portions of the split needing to be anytime. Is there a simple explanation for this? I am aware I have to catch trains which stop at Gatwick, but that isn't an issue as all the trains I could feasibly catch stop at Gatwick.

It's generally because there is often a huge premium charged for longer distance journeys.

Shorter distance journeys may be (or have historically been) set by train companies with a cheaper pricing policy.

In other cases it may be because longer distance day returns were abolished.

For example York to Sheffield is priced by Northern, while Sheffield to Derby is priced by EMR. Both offer day returns and have relatively reasonably priced fares (by GB standards).

But CrossCountry (XC) set York to Derby; they do not want people to buy cheaper day returns; the through fares are set to be really expensive (it's considered too far for many people to want to drive, has no viable bus/coach alternative and is far too short obviously for planes, so they have a captive market) and peak restrictions are set to be really onerous, with off peak not kicking in until 0930 onwards.

Under British Rail, York to Derby Saver Single/Return fares were valid at any time but XC re-named this as "off peak" and require people who travel before 0930 to pay the extortionate Anytime fare.

Savvy passengers know about split ticket websites and use a split ticket provider. Non-savvy passengers may pay whatever XC ask them to pay as there is no viable alternative. This maximises revenue on a yield management basis, with people paying a price that more closely resembles what they are prepared to pay.

Some people are put off travelling and either do not make the journey or use another mode. XC are very happy for some people to make this choice, as at some times of day XC trains are fully loaded and XC have no desire nor easy means to increase capacity.

Therefore XC see the current situation as the best possible scenario to maximise revenue and suppress some demand; why have full trains of people paying lower fares, when they can reduce overcrowding, have savvy people paying the lower fares, and people with big budgets paying really high fares?

If XC reduced the cost of a day return trip on their 0844 departure from £116.20 to match the split fare (around £40) their trains would be even more crowded and they would make less money from those passengers who are prepared to stump up the extra £76.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

i would suspect what you are benefitting from here is the decision, when DfT put all services London - Gatwick in a single operator (ie. GTR) not to increase the fares that had resulted from competition between the previous two operators (ie. which had been lower), at least for the moment.

But, in general, prices for shorter journeys are cheaper because they are aimed historically at day-trips which have to be fairly price competitive whereas longer trips are not.

 

[tbtc]

Sometimes it's the law of unintended consequences.

You could have a "utopian" situation where all fares cost the same number of pence per mile, nice and simple, no incentive to split anywhere... but then a PTE/ Mayor/ Regional Assembly want to incentivise travelling by public transport so pay to subsidise train tickets within their region... that's great for people who's journeys take place within those boundaries, and doesn't appear to "hurt" people who made journeys that crossed the boundary (since they are still paying the same ticket price as before), but it now means that "ticket from outside boundary to first station inside boundary" plus "discounted ticket for travel wholly within boundary" may now be cheaper for those passengers

It may only be pennies worth of difference, but multiply that by decades of fare rises and it can stretch further. Nobody meant to create an anomaly, nobody intended this situation where people appear to be "penalised" for not being savvy and buying two tickets - so we get examples like some XC journeys where XC are increasing the (longer distance) fares that they set in line with inflation but the various PTEs etc are limiting fare rises inside their regions, which means it becomes cheaper to buy a ticket to the station just inside the boundary and then a further one from there to your destination - sometimes trying to do right can go wrong

 

[yorkie]

Sometimes it's the law of unintended consequences.

You could have a "utopian" situation where all fares cost the same number of pence per mile, nice and simple, no incentive to split anywhere... but then a PTE/ Mayor/ Regional Assembly want to incentivise travelling by public transport so pay to subsidise train tickets within their region... that's great for people who's journeys take place within those boundaries, and doesn't appear to "hurt" people who made journeys that crossed the boundary (since they are still paying the same ticket price as before), but it now means that "ticket from outside boundary to first station inside boundary" plus "discounted ticket for travel wholly within boundary" may now be cheaper for those passengers

It may only be pennies worth of difference, but multiply that by decades of fare rises and it can stretch further. Nobody meant to create an anomaly, nobody intended this situation where people appear to be "penalised" for not being savvy and buying two tickets - so we get examples like some XC journeys where XC are increasing the (longer distance) fares that they set in line with inflation but the various PTEs etc are limiting fare rises inside their regions, which means it becomes cheaper to buy a ticket to the station just inside the boundary and then a further one from there to your destination - sometimes trying to do right can go wrong

Indeed; West Yorkshire PTE priced fares are cheap (by GB standards), so Micklefield to Marsden (34 miles each way) is £8.30 for a CDR, however TransPennine Express get to decide the price from Ulleskelf and they have decreed it should be really expensive, priced at £26.20 for an SVR.

However Ulleskelf to Micklefield is only 7 miles each way and Northern get to decide the fare between the two, which is overpriced at £6.30 CDR but the sum of the two fares is little more than half the through fare, even though one of the tickets you buy is really overpriced.

Places which are located beyond the PTE fares often have premium pricing that goes well beyond the cost of the (expensive) fares to the boundary station plus the fare within the PTE.

I doubt any of this is going to change, as there is no way to tick all the boxes.

If it does change, then mark my words those of us who are aware of split ticket websites (i.e. pretty much everyone reading this) are going to be paying MUCH higher fares and many would be pushed onto other modes of transport or forced to abandon the journey altogether.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The primary reason that split ticketing and fares anomalies got completely out of hand was that in order to get the Railways Act (the Act that 'privatised' the railways and abolished British Rail) through Parliament in 1993, undertakings were included to maintain through and network pricing, but without any national mechanism to manage it. Instead, 'network' fares were divided up between different operators. These 'network' fares were/are not confined to use on that operator. Although initially a degree of consultation between operators was allowed, this was made illegal as a result of new 1998 competition legislation. In essence, the TOCs were expected to act as private competing companies whilst simultaneously setting fares on parts of the network that were also valid on those competitor services.
Over time, the rifts in pricing and validity created the situation whereby mixing and matching combinations of fare could quite often undercut the through fare.
Having lots of companies set their own fares and compete with each other leads to lower fares in a number of cases but requires customers and retailers to work harder to find the best deals. Having one national organisation set the fares creates the opportunity to streamline and simplify the structure but means that loopholes are far and few and can be much more easily dealt with. Trying to do both simultaneously is frankly nuts, (an attempt at 'have cake, eat cake' situation if ever their was one) but is effectively what Governments of all hues have presided over until Covid hammered the final nails into the outgoing industry structure.
Interestingly, a number of those people who have railed in these forums against evil money grabbing (etc etc) private TOCs have become aware that the effective renationalisation of fare setting (and the urgent need to stop money leaking left, right and centre out of the system) is likely to lead to a somewhat more hardline approach to fares management in future, now that it is the Government's own money and not someone else's. Be careful what you wish for!

 

[yorkie]

Having lots of companies set their own fares and compete with each other leads to lower fares in a number of cases but requires customers and retailers to work harder to find the best deals. Having one national organisation set the fares creates the opportunity to streamline and simplify the structure but means that loopholes are far and few and can be much more easily dealt with.

Make no mistake: that would mean we'd all be paying higher fares on average; in many cases MUCH more.

Trying to do both simultaneously is frankly nuts, (an attempt at 'have cake, eat cake' situation if ever their was one) but is effectively what Governments of all hues have presided over until Covid hammered the final nails into the outgoing industry structure.
Interestingly, a number of those people who have railed in these forums against evil money grabbing (etc etc) private TOCs have become aware that the effective renationalisation of fare setting (and the urgent need to stop money leaking left, right and centre out of the system) is likely to lead to a somewhat more hardline approach to fares management in future, now that it is the Government's own money and not someone else's. Be careful what you wish for!

I agree people should be careful what they wish for; the current fares are the least bad option as anyone who is price conscious can simply use a ticket splitting website, while businesses who are not price conscious effectively cross subsidise us

Market based pricing cannot ever be avoided in its entirety so we may as well accept the status quo.

 

[JonathanH]

The biggest danger in this context is PAYG whereby the location at which a passenger touches in and where they touch out becomes the only determinant of the fare.

However, even there the railway has split issues - Redhill to London Bridge is £12.00 peak single on Oyster / Contactless. Redhill to East Croydon and East Croydon to London Bridge is £5.70 peak single for each leg. The only way to split is to get off and touch out / in at East Croydon.

 

[yorkie]

The biggest danger in this context is PAYG whereby the location at which a passenger touches in and where they touch out becomes the only determinant of the fare.

However, even there the railway has split issues - Redhill to London Bridge is £12.00 peak single on Oyster / Contactless. Redhill to East Croydon and East Croydon to London Bridge is £5.70 peak single for each leg. The only way to split is to get off and touch out / in at East Croydon.

Yes, GTR/DfT want to charge a premium for Redhill to London but they know they can't make Redhill to East Croydon too expensive and indeed if they did that, they'd lose too much custom.

But they are compelled to honour cheaper fares within the London zonal area.

Even the London to Gatwick non-premium fare is actually set at a hefty premium, with it being cheaper to split at East Croydon and being much more expensive than going just to Horley, which is only a mile short of the airport station.

Splitting on PAYG is unattractive to customers in many cases, especially where through trains exist, because it generally (though not always) means incurring a delay to the journey, in order to tap out and back in again.

Those who are savvy not only have to go out of their way to tap out and back in but have to actually do a fair bit of research to even find out about it, as well as delaying their journey.

By contrast, with paper tickets anyone can do it and there is no knowledge required and it's just as quick and easy to book through a split ticket provider as any other retailer.

 

[Watershed]

Although initially a degree of consultation between operators was allowed, this was made illegal as a result of new 1998 competition legislation.

This claim has often been made, but I find it rather difficult to take at face value.

Collaboration is inherent in the setting of fares on an integrated railway such as Britain's, and indeed there are many products out there which only came about through collaboration between TOCs, for example "Chiltern & TfW only" or "Avanti & Northern only" fares. Equally, there are instances where TOCs have repeatedly sought to undercut each other by 10p, to ensure their fares are highlighted as the cheapest on journey planners.

I suspect that this misapprehension has been ingrained through the desire of commercial departments to be seen to be 'toeing the line', and as an excuse for failing to coordinating fares changes in a more coherent manner.

By contrast, where the DfT has 'authorised' or encouraged it, TOCs have been happy to engage in behaviour that has actually led to Competition Act class-action claims, by purporting to compete with themselves. Perhaps they thought that DfT 'approval' exempted them from complying with the law.

 

[najaB]

I agree with almost your entire post except:

and XC have no desire nor easy means to increase capacity

The means is the issue, not lack of desire, as I see it.

If they could increase capacity they would - while not decreasing fares by much - since, as you say, they have a more or less captive market.

The DfT are the ones with no desire to spend money to increase capacity.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not going to get into that debate here as it's the wrong thread, but the point stands that prices are often set at a level that acts as deterrent because some trains are full.

The problem is that this policy, especially when implemented as badly as is done by XC, also results in a lot of fresh air being carted around in the less busy trains; this is especially noteworthy when travelling on many routes before 0930, where it can be busier to travel at ostensibly "off peak" times than at "peak" times.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

The primary reason that split ticketing and fares anomalies got completely out of hand was that in order to get the Railways Act (the Act that 'privatised' the railways and abolished British Rail) through Parliament in 1993, undertakings were included to maintain through and network pricing, but without any national mechanism to manage it. Instead, 'network' fares were divided up between different operators. These 'network' fares were/are not confined to use on that operator. Although initially a degree of consultation between operators was allowed, this was made illegal as a result of new 1998 competition legislation. In essence, the TOCs were expected to act as private competing companies whilst simultaneously setting fares on parts of the network that were also valid on those competitor services.
Over time, the rifts in pricing and validity created the situation whereby mixing and matching combinations of fare could quite often undercut the through fare.
Having lots of companies set their own fares and compete with each other leads to lower fares in a number of cases but requires customers and retailers to work harder to find the best deals. Having one national organisation set the fares creates the opportunity to streamline and simplify the structure but means that loopholes are far and few and can be much more easily dealt with. Trying to do both simultaneously is frankly nuts, (an attempt at 'have cake, eat cake' situation if ever their was one) but is effectively what Governments of all hues have presided over until Covid hammered the final nails into the outgoing industry structure.
Interestingly, a number of those people who have railed in these forums against evil money grabbing (etc etc) private TOCs have become aware that the effective renationalisation of fare setting (and the urgent need to stop money leaking left, right and centre out of the system) is likely to lead to a somewhat more hardline approach to fares management in future, now that it is the Government's own money and not someone else's. Be careful what you wish for!

In addition certain types of fares such as savers/CDRs were controlled (typically inflation +1%) but standard where not. A TOC could increase the standard fare to what the market would bear. On my line a peak trip to London was uncontrolled, but within that trip there were elements (such as Bristol to Swindon) for which savers/CDRs were valid. You save money by buying a mix of (cheaper) regulated fares and (unregulated) standards for the rest (Swindon to Bristol).

 

[Watershed]

In addition certain types of fares such as savers/CDRs were controlled (typically inflation +1%) but standard where not. A TOC could increase the standard fare to what the market would bear. On my line a peak trip to London was uncontrolled, but within that trip there were elements (such as Bristol to Swindon) for which savers/CDRs were valid. You save money by buying a mix of (cheaper) regulated fares and (unregulated) standards for the rest (Swindon to Bristol).

There weren't ever any regulated CDRs - only SDRs and SVRs (or the successor to the SVR in some cases).

The way that fares were regulated over the years has varied. Initially there was a cap applied on a cumulative basis, limiting fares to a certain percentage of their 1995 levels, which prevented low-value fares from being increased by 10p each year "because it's the minimum increase". There were also several years of "below" inflation (RPI-1) increases between 1999 and 2003.

Unfortunately this was dropped in 2004 as the Labour government changed to the RPI+1 formula, which was also now applied on a yearly, rather than cumulative, basis. This was also the point at which "fares baskets" or "flex" were introduced, allowing TOCs to increase popular fares by up to RPI+5, provided they froze or reduced a proportionate value of fares so as to limit the overall increase to RPI+1.

This is one of the main reasons why, for example even the regulated fares on the Reading to Paddington corridor are now far more expensive, in real terms, than they were at privatisation. In turn, fares in much of Devon and Cornwall are very low because they were frozen or cut by FGW (as it then was) to allow for these increases.

In 2014 the "flex" was reduced to RPI+2 and in 2015, it was abolished entirely and overall increase were also capped at RPI. This continued up until 2021, when the annual fare increase was postponed until March but occurred at RPI+1 - a familiar refrain of revenue-raising. The same happened this year but the government has reverted to the RPI formula once again.

 

[pdq]

Make no mistake: that would mean we'd all be paying higher fares on average; in many cases MUCH more.

Surely if a change is revenue neutral, then on average the travelling public will pay the same, with some gaining and some losing.

 

[yorkie]

Surely if a change is revenue neutral, then on average the travelling public will pay the same, with some gaining and some losing.

But no-one here pays above the average; we all pay below it.

Also how can you be sure that increasing some fares will not result in fewer people travelling? So called "reenue neutral" price changes exists in theory and in computer modelling and the reality is unknown. The term is used to disguise the fact that many people will be asked to pay (much) more; some of those will abandon rail.

Anyone who knows about split ticket websites, and uses them, is paying less than 'average' (the mean); none of us reading this pay the 'average' of all fares, as the average is skewed by incredibly expensive fares such as the York to Derby Anytime example.

How could the York to Derby fares be made revenue neutral and also avoid any need to split and also avoid increasing subsidy and any of the other pitfalls? And that's before you get into single leg pricing, which some believe is a must for any overhaul of the fares structure.

It just can't be done in a way that satisfies everyone; anyone who says it can, gives up when asked for practical examples of how it would actually work.

 

[alistairlees]

The primary reason that split ticketing and fares anomalies got completely out of hand was that in order to get the Railways Act (the Act that 'privatised' the railways and abolished British Rail) through Parliament in 1993, undertakings were included to maintain through and network pricing, but without any national mechanism to manage it. Instead, 'network' fares were divided up between different operators. These 'network' fares were/are not confined to use on that operator. Although initially a degree of consultation between operators was allowed, this was made illegal as a result of new 1998 competition legislation. In essence, the TOCs were expected to act as private competing companies whilst simultaneously setting fares on parts of the network that were also valid on those competitor services.
Over time, the rifts in pricing and validity created the situation whereby mixing and matching combinations of fare could quite often undercut the through fare.
Having lots of companies set their own fares and compete with each other leads to lower fares in a number of cases but requires customers and retailers to work harder to find the best deals. Having one national organisation set the fares creates the opportunity to streamline and simplify the structure but means that loopholes are far and few and can be much more easily dealt with. Trying to do both simultaneously is frankly nuts, (an attempt at 'have cake, eat cake' situation if ever their was one) but is effectively what Governments of all hues have presided over until Covid hammered the final nails into the outgoing industry structure.
Interestingly, a number of those people who have railed in these forums against evil money grabbing (etc etc) private TOCs have become aware that the effective renationalisation of fare setting (and the urgent need to stop money leaking left, right and centre out of the system) is likely to lead to a somewhat more hardline approach to fares management in future, now that it is the Government's own money and not someone else's. Be careful what you wish for!

The other main point, absent from your narrative, is the proliferation of new ticket types (and also pricing points) created by TOC pricing managers over the last 20+ years (but especially the last 10). This has multiplied split ticketing opportunities many times over. Since privatisation well over 1,000 ticket types (many Advance, of course) have been created. The problem that TOCs have been trying to solve, clearly, is that there were not enough ticket types.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the biggest reasons is that short distance off peak day returns are typically priced very low but are typically only offered for journeys up to about 50 miles (this isn't a fixed number, but it's often about that). Thus, if making a long distance journey returning the same day, stringing several of these together is often markedly cheaper than a through off peak period return.

You've then got that there are far more single-TOC Advances than multi-TOC ones, so you can again gain by stringing these together.

There's also scope to circumvent time restrictions, e.g. in the evening from Euston you can buy to MKC, then from MKC to the destination, though to do this the train has to stop there and there are very few that do.

Finally there are sometimes "special offer" fares offered only on limited flows.

These cases out of the way, I don't find that splitting for a period return is universally cheaper. For most journeys involving the WCML it isn't.

 

[E759]

I'm curious as to why splitting a ticket ends up cheaper than a single through ticket. For example, I work in London once a week and buy a return from Horsham to Farringdon at peak time. This costs £49 for an anytime return. If I ask for the return with a split at Gatwick, it costs £33 despite both portions of the split needing to be anytime. Is there a simple explanation for this? I am aware I have to catch trains which stop at Gatwick, but that isn't an issue as all the trains I could feasibly catch stop at Gatwick.

Horsham to Potters Bar Anytime Day Return £34 is a very popular ticket and removes the need to stop at Gatwick. Who'd have thought so many people living in Horsham work in Potters Bar

Plenty of rush-hour trains on the BML pre-pandemic which didn't stop at Gatwick. Worth the 90p extra in my book and extra validity too.

 

[Watershed]

Horsham to Potters Bar Anytime Day Return £34 is a very popular ticket and removes the need to stop at Gatwick. Who'd have thought so many people living in Horsham work in Potters Bar

Plenty of rush-hour trains on the BML pre-pandemic which didn't stop at Gatwick. Worth the 90p extra in my book and extra validity too.

Even cheaper than that is Horsham to West Hampstead stations, at £30.40. Also routed +Any Permitted.

 

[E759]

Even cheaper than that is Horsham to West Hampstead stations, at £30.40. Also routed +Any Permitted.

Thank you very much, a great ticket indeed!

 

[al78]

Thank you for the explanations, not exactly simple but very thorough, and a fair bit to digest.

 

[RJ]

I think whatever system is in place, people will find ways to make savings.

Round these parts the railways operate on an honesty basis, where people who don’t want to pay simply ask for permission to travel and are given it.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The other main point, absent from your narrative, is the proliferation of new ticket types (and also pricing points) created by TOC pricing managers over the last 20+ years (but especially the last 10). This has multiplied split ticketing opportunities many times over. Since privatisation well over 1,000 ticket types (many Advance, of course) have been created. The problem that TOCs have been trying to solve, clearly, is that there were not enough ticket types.

Indeed, but that is a consequence of having to maintain in stasis a regulated through fare structure but to then overlay it with additional products so stuff is constantly being added rather than replaced. The technical infrastructure of ticket types and products is plumbing but the the mis-mash of regulation plus a free-for-all means that there has been no curation of either the structure or the retail presentation.

 

[FenMan]

Indeed, but that is a consequence of having to maintain in stasis a regulated through fare structure but to then overlay it with additional products so stuff is constantly being added rather than replaced. The technical infrastructure of ticket types and products is plumbing but the the mis-mash of regulation plus a free-for-all means that there has been no curation of either the structure or the retail presentation.

The other part of the story is valid routes. GWR would love to prevent far cheaper tickets than straight Reading - Paddington returns being valid on their golden corridor at peak times, but they haven't succeeded yet. For which I'm very thankful! A £15 saving every time for me, with far bigger savings available for savvy travellers doing the reverse commute to Reading.

 

[RJ]

One other point - sometimes splitting works if you're happy to shed validity you don't need.

For example the other day I travelled from Euston to Shrewsbury via Birmingham with Avanti and TfW - instead of buying a through Off Peak Return, I bought a Super Off Peak Return to Wolverhampton then an Off Peak Return from there. With that split I lose the option of travelling via Crewe and have extra time restrictions out of Euston, but those privileges were happily foregone given I didn't need them.

In many cases, a split doesn't mirror the time and routing validity of a through ticket so in my opinion like isn't being compared with like.

 

[najaB]

One other point - sometimes splitting works if you're happy to shed validity you don't need.

A similar situation with Dundee-Glasgow. The return tickets (day or period) are valid via Edinburgh. Splitting via Perth limits you to one route, but saves about 20%.

 

[317 forever]

As has been discussed, it is often cheaper to split tickets when fares are set by different TOCs or the journey is deemed too far for a daytrip.

However, it is sometimes cheaper to split tickets even for Advances or for Off-peak Returns with the same operator.

In 2020 it proved slightly cheaper to buy Off-peak Returns Stockport - Birmingham and Birmingham - Oxford than a through Off-peak Return Stockport - Oxford.

Last year it proved cheaper to buy Advances East Didsbury - Manchester Piccadilly - Liverpool Lime Street and back again than Advances East Didsbury - Liverpool Lime Street and back.

Very recently I have seen that Advances Stockport - Newcastle via Doncaster plus Newcastle - Edinburgh on the same train add up to a lower fare than a Stockport - Edinburgh via Doncaster through Advance ticket.

 

[miklcct]

It's very common that an advance can be split to be made cheaper because of quota control, such that different segments of the journey are all booked at the lowest available level.