Plan for Staycation Rail Pass Abandoned

[Wolfie]

Whilst there’s nothing wrong with Leeds, Halifax and Wakefield I think a tourist exploring the area would want to be a little more imaginative. I could quite happily base myself in a hotel close to a railway station in one of those places and use a regional rover to explore Harrogate, Knaresborough, York, Skipton, Ilkley, Hebden Bridge, Skipton, Settle, Bronte Country, Saltaire etc etc. Unfortunately using that example one regional rover wouldn’t cover the area as it’s divided into North West and North East.

There isn’t any need to travel huge distances from one end of the country to the other. Some people don’t want to keep moving hotels and would prefer to stay in a central base. The last time I did a 7 Day NW Rover I had a whole days exploring the Cumbrian Coast, the Wirral, the coast between Liverpool and Southport, plus historic cities like Chester and Carlisle.

I think there is a case for developing more regional rovers for areas tourists really want to explore and advertising them more.

I wasn't being critical of Yorkshire per se, far from it as there are, as you say, many beautiful locations there, but was merely citing the example given by a previous poster.

 

[ChrisC]

I wasn't being critical of Yorkshire per se, far from it as there are, as you say, many beautiful locations there, but was merely citing the example given by a previous poster.

I realised that. I was just trying to illustrate how useful regional rovers, with some adjusting of areas covered, and better advertising, could be for tourists. The average tourist probably doesn’t want to travel huge distances daily, but would be more inclined to leave the car at home, if a region could be explored by rail more easily with a rover ticket.

 

[JonathanH]

Don’t you think it bizarre that I can buy such a ticket but you- despite paying tax in the UK- cannot?

No, because as a mainland UK resident, there is precisely zero need to have complete freedom of the entire rail network. It is nothing to do with tax.

I realised that. I was just trying to illustrate how useful regional rovers, with some adjusting of areas covered, and better advertising, could be for tourists. The average tourist probably doesn’t want to travel huge distances daily, but would be more inclined to leave the car at home, if a region could be explored by rail more easily with a rover ticket.

Very well said. This is exactly the point in my mind. Regional tickets allow tourism to be encouraged in certain areas, with the ability to explore that region. Why spend £571 having access to the whole network for a week, when that amount buys a number of weeks of travel in different regions?

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, because as a mainland UK resident, there is precisely zero need to have complete freedom of the entire rail network. It is nothing to do with tax.

Can people not be tourists in their own country?

Do you really not think it bizarre that the railway will offer these tickets to foreigners but will not offer them to their own residents? After all, it’s residents- through taxation- who are paying for the railway.

As I say, it suits me fine that I can get 15 days 1st class travel for £50 less than you pay for 7 days standard class travel. But even I can see that’s a rather odd situation.

 

[A0]

Not conducive to the continual fleecing of the travelling public and the imposition of treasury cuts.

Not surprising since we have a motorist Government for motorists.

Obviously there's no real reason why we can't have such a thing if other countries have it, but the Establishment are only interested in following their quasi-religious cult of market commercialism.

Except motorists are net contributors to the Treasury, whereas as we are all aware (or at least should be) the rail network is a net drain on the Treasury.

Alienate motorists and you reduce your income - not a great idea.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There isn’t any need to travel huge distances from one end of the country to the other. Some people don’t want to keep moving hotels and would prefer to stay in a central base.

The same applies for foreign tourists though, for whom a wide range of BritRail passes are available. Indeed BritRail is available in a flexipass whilst the ALR is not.

Local passes are great, and in Northern land there are a good few day rangers, rovers and flexi passes to meet that market. But what if you want to tourist in your own country?

 

[A0]

Can people not be tourists in their own country?

Do you really not think it bizarre that the railway will offer these tickets to foreigners but will not offer them to their own residents? After all, it’s residents- through taxation- who are paying for the railway.

As I say, it suits me fine that I can get 15 days 1st class travel for £50 less than you pay for 7 days standard class travel. But even I can see that’s a rather odd situation.

Yes, of course they can.

But how many people in the UK who holiday in the UK over a 2 week period want to visit Norfolk, Cornwall, Wales, Stratford on Avon and Edinburgh in one holiday ? The answer is, of course, hardly any. Most people will head to an area for 1 or 2 weeks and explore that area in depth. Which is where the many regional rovers come into the equation and make much more sense for domestic travellers.

Whereas an American tourist with 2 weeks in the UK might want to do the tourist trail of London, Canterbury, Stratford on Avon, Oxford, Liverpool, Edinburgh and the Lake District - at best a day in each.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Except motorists are net contributors to the Treasury

Revenue from VED is about half of the annual cost of maintaining Britain’s roads.

I know people like to add fuel duty into this, but not all fuel duty is paid by road users and not all road users pay fuel duty (e.g. EVs)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

But how many people in the UK who holiday in the UK over a 2 week period want to visit Norfolk, Cornwall, Wales, Stratford on Avon and Edinburgh in one holiday ? The answer is, of course, hardly any.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The argument from the Treasury seems very disjointed though. It’ll be a niche product so nobody would buy it, but it will also be revenue abstractive. Hmm. I’m not buying that one.

 

[A0]

Revenue from VED is about half of the annual cost of maintaining Britain’s roads.

I know people like to add fuel duty into this, but not all fuel duty is paid by road users and not all road users pay fuel duty (e.g. EVs)

That's just adjusting the facts to fit your argument. You can't just exclude Fuel Duty because some cars don't pay it - that's a nonsense.

You also ignore VAT paid on new car sales, Insurance Premium Taxes, VAT on servicing and maintenance - all of those added together exceed the roads budget.

And still the rail network is a net drain on the Treasury.

The argument from the Treasury seems very disjointed though. It’ll be a niche product so nobody would buy it, but it will also be revenue abstractive. Hmm. I’m not buying that one.

Or perhaps they've just worked out that the only buyers would be a few rail enthusiasts who, as ever, have short arms and deep pockets and want something cheap or better still free, paid for by everybody else ?

 

[sor]

Except motorists are net contributors to the Treasury, whereas as we are all aware (or at least should be) the rail network is a net drain on the Treasury.

Alienate motorists and you reduce your income - not a great idea.

This is the same sort of cyclical argument as when investing in London above all other areas is justified.

People drive because public transport is pants, so we must continue to invest in roads, so more people drive as the advantages become ever clearer, and so we shouldn't invest in public transport as no one uses it, more people drive, etc.

Or perhaps they've just worked out that the only buyers would be a few rail enthusiasts who, as ever, have short arms and deep pockets and want something cheap or better still free, paid for by everybody else ?

You seem to have more faith and optimism in decision makers than just about anyone else in this thread. Again - interrail clearly isn't a niche business, neither are national passes for other countries. There is nothing special about the UK that would make an equivalent product such a failure.

But as the other poster says - if it is a niche product, then it won't kill revenue, so what's the problem with offering it anyway?

The obsession with regional rovers as a supplicant for this makes no sense to me. They have their place too, and should exist, but the idea that a stack of rovers is an adequate replacement for a single pass is the typical UK attitude to shortsightenedness leading to overcomplication.

 

[Sm5]

One way of protecting revenue may be to prevent using the ticket on the same route, out and back, more than once.

 

[MrJeeves]

Wouldn't the fairly obvious solution to this be implementing restrictions against the use of high speed services on any staycation pass? I'd be rather happy with being able to pay less, and perhaps have to use LNR instead of Avanti, for example.

Oh wait! The all line rover already does this for peak times! It drives me mad that for £571 per week, I wouldn't be able to board an Avanti train in the morning...

 

[A0]

This is the same sort of cyclical argument as when investing in London above all other areas is justified.

People drive because public transport is pants, so we must continue to invest in roads, so more people drive as the advantages become ever clearer, and so we shouldn't invest in public transport as no one uses it, more people drive, etc.

Greater London has a population of almost 10 million in an area of 1500 sq km - a population density of over 5,500 / sq km.

Norfolk by comparison (just picking a county at random) has a population of of 900k in an area of 5300 sq km - a population density of 168 sq km.

Public transport makes some sense in highly populated, densely populated areas - which in the UK is London, the West Mids, Greater Manchester and that's about it. And the latter two have a population density half that of London.

You can't use "London does it" as the justification - it would be hugely costly and get only marginal use to put in an extensive network in somewhere like Norfolk.

 

[Haywain]

Alienate motorists and you reduce your income - not a great idea.

Any evidence to support that assertion?

 

[A0]

But as the other poster says - if it is a niche product, then it won't kill revenue, so what's the problem with offering it anyway?

The obsession with regional rovers as a supplicant for this makes no sense to me. They have their place too, and should exist, but the idea that a stack of rovers is an adequate replacement for a single pass is the typical UK attitude to shortsightenedness leading to overcomplication.

The All Line Rover already exists - so why is another all line product needed, except presumably at lower cost which is why some people on here think it's a great idea ?

It's not a "stack of rovers" at all - it's about targeting tickets where people go on holiday. If you know loads of people who traipse around the UK visiting half a dozen different areas in a week's holiday who are British, then you are absolutely in the minority - a very small minority. Most people go somewhere for a week or two weeks - so a rover which covers Devon and Cornwall makes sense. But if you really want to travel the length and breadth of the country, buy an All Line Rover and accept the cost.

 

[MrJeeves]

Greater London has a population of almost 10 million in an area of 1500 sq km - a population density of over 5,500 / sq km.

Norfolk by comparison (just picking a county at random) has a population of of 900k in an area of 5300 sq km - a population density of 168 sq km.

Public transport makes some sense in highly populated, densely populated areas - which in the UK is London, the West Mids, Greater Manchester and that's about it. And the latter two have a population density half that of London.

You can't use "London does it" as the justification - it would be hugely costly and get only marginal use to put in an extensive network in somewhere like Norfolk.

Public transport only works in densely populated areas.

Densely populated areas usually form around economic hotspots.

Economic hotspots are usually helped form through significant investment in the local area.

Investment in the local area brings more people within commuting distance, provided that commuting is easily possible.

But commuting isn't easily possible in many of these places because public transport is fairly restricted.

I see an issue here. Perhaps building of such transport links -- not with the same density as the Tube, obviously -- would actually create a new area of growth?

 

[A0]

Any evidence to support that assertion?

The normal evidence that if you alienate somebody upon whom you are reliant for your income, that they will look at whether they want to spend their money with you.

The desertion of most high streets, many of which have been plagued with anti-car measures, excessive and restrictive parking charges is surely evidence at one level of the motorists voting with their feet and heading to somewhere more attractive or, doing as I do, virtually all my shopping online now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

Public transport only works in densely populated areas.

Densely populated areas usually form around economic hotspots.

Economic hotspots are usually helped form through significant investment in the local area.

Investment in the local area brings more people within commuting distance, provided that commuting is easily possible.

But commuting isn't easily possible in many of these places because public transport is fairly restricted.

I see an issue here. Perhaps building of such transport links -- not with the same density as the Tube, obviously -- would actually create a new area of growth?

You already see the opposition to the level of housebuilding taking place in many rural areas - good luck with selling the argument of "we'll build you new railways / bus networks, but the trade off is 50,000 houses in your local area to generate the demand".

 

[Fleetmaster]

It is surely uncontroversial to say that they must have researched a range of options for how this card would work and how much it would cost a passenger, they put them to potential passengers, and found the predicted uptake and thus the hoped for increase in tourism related economic activity (and thus ultimately return to the Treasury) fell far short of what it would actually cost the Treasury to implement given the potential alternatives. Things which are surely far easier to target and far easier to calculate the cost/benefit.

I strongly suspect it was hard to get around the deep suspicion that the deal savvy British public would rip the pants out of any deal deemed to be overly generous. I know I'm taking the absolute Micheal when it comes to this £2 bus fare, but I also know nobody except the railways are suffering, which in a way, is how it should be. If the railways want my custom, offer a better service than the alternatives. It says a lot that even in these times of supposed deep bus cuts, I'm surprised how far a journey has to be, and how remote the start finish points, before the bus alternative becomes wildly unattractive from either a cost or journey time perspective.

I'm currently planning a cross country trip for purely a one day domestic tourism reason, where the railway can't compete with a £2 bus fare even if this staycation rail card was as cheap as £10 a month, since it might be another month before I am even in a position to take a another day trip, least if all one that can be done by rail.

The railways could of course offer me a stupendously good walk on fare given the route and times I want are basically when they are transporting fresh air across the country and like most British domestic tourists I don't buy a day ticket in advance because the day might turn out to be a washout, but they won't. It seems quite sad that I no longer even know if the reason they won't is because of a lack of commercial imagination or the stifling dead hand of government bureaucracy.

 

[Haywain]

The normal evidence that if you alienate somebody upon whom you are reliant for your income, that they will look at whether they want to spend their money with you.

So no actual evidence at all, just a theory.

 

[A0]

So no actual evidence at all, just a theory.

No - the desertion of the high streets is evidential up and down the country. And councils have failed to stem that because they are reliant on the revenue from parking charges.

What's your suggestion ?

 

[Haywain]

No

Thanks for clarifying that you have no actual evidence.

the desertion of the high streets is evidential up and down the country. And councils have failed to stem that because they are reliant on the revenue from parking charges.

What's your suggestion ?

Yes, there's a problem with empty shops on high streets but you're accepting the simplistic solution of the motoring lobby. Online shopping and free delivery has a huge amount to answer for, as does the development of out of town retail parks. It certainly isn't as simple as saying that free parking, and allowing traffic into pedestrianised areas would solve the problem. And my suggestion? I don't have one but that not what this thread was about anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I strongly suspect it was hard to get around the deep suspicion that the deal savvy British public would rip the pants out of any deal deemed to be overly generous.

We saw something similar when the ALR became publicised by Lord Adonis. As it undercut a couple of Anytime fares, it was seen as “overly generous” and time restrictions were implemented. It doesn’t appear to have occurred to anyone that the ALR becoming well known may (will) have brought new people to the railway who will then go back to air.

Certainly when I was travelling from Newcastle to London regularly for work it was often quite a bit cheaper to travel at short-ish notice on British Airways, and that was back when BA even gave you a G&T and a snack.

I find it telling you can’t easily find the price of a BritRail pass from a UK computer. I think if people knew just how good value these tickets were, they’d question why residents are excluded from them.

Or perhaps they've just worked out that the only buyers would be a few rail enthusiasts who, as ever, have short arms and deep pockets and want something cheap or better still free, paid for by everybody else ?

Yet they offer Interrail and BritRail products, which appear to be very commercially successful.

It’s either a niche product- in which case revenue abstraction will be nil- or it isn’t, in which case it will drive usage and drive revenue.

All the while they keep offering dirt cheap tickets to those of us who contribute precisely nothing to the upkeep of the railways. Maybe it attracts tourism, because Americans were otherwise never going to visit Oxford and Chinese were never otherwise going to visit Bicester Village.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

That's just adjusting the facts to fit your argument. You can't just exclude Fuel Duty because some cars don't pay it - that's a nonsense.

It’s no more of a nonsense than excluding car pollution-related illnesses, and excluding the costs of traffic injuries, from the costs of motoring.

 

[A0]

Yet they offer Interrail and BritRail products, which appear to be very commercially successful.

It’s either a niche product- in which case revenue abstraction will be nil- or it isn’t, in which case it will drive usage and drive revenue.

All the while they keep offering dirt cheap tickets to those of us who contribute precisely nothing to the upkeep of the railways. Maybe it attracts tourism, because Americans were otherwise never going to visit Oxford and Chinese were never otherwise going to visit Bicester Village.

Bit in bold - since a large majority of passenger journeys aren't profitable - see Bald Rick's comment on other threads about none of Northern's services covering their costs - I'd say you were already getting quite a big subsidy from the government already ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd say you were already getting quite a big subsidy from the government already ?

I am. I can buy a 15-day 1st class BritRail pass for a smudge over £500

Mad, isn’t it. I don’t pay tax in the UK yet get a great deal on the trains. Taxpayers in the UK don’t.

 

[A0]

I am. I can buy a 15-day 1st class BritRail pass for a smudge over £500

Mad, isn’t it. I don’t pay tax in the UK yet get a great deal on the trains. Taxpayers in the UK don’t.

Taxpayers do (though clearly being an IoM resident that doesn't apply to you) - because they are subsidised for pretty much every journey they make. They don't need even more subsidy on that basis.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, of course they can.

But how many people in the UK who holiday in the UK over a 2 week period want to visit Norfolk, Cornwall, Wales, Stratford on Avon and Edinburgh in one holiday ? The answer is, of course, hardly any. Most people will head to an area for 1 or 2 weeks and explore that area in depth. Which is where the many regional rovers come into the equation and make much more sense for domestic travellers.

Whereas an American tourist with 2 weeks in the UK might want to do the tourist trail of London, Canterbury, Stratford on Avon, Oxford, Liverpool, Edinburgh and the Lake District - at best a day in each.

Is that not as a result of the transport system rather than justification for it ?

As a Child me and my parents travelled up from Kent to Dundee to visit my sister there, taking in Oxford on the way up and York on the way down.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, given ticketing options this was done by car, however is it really so outlandish that someone might want to book in a few destinations elsewhere in the country ? As others have mentioned, the Swiss don't seem to think so.

The all line rover could be improved for such a purpose, but as it is, it's useless for anyone other than hardcore track bashers.

Could the real reason such a ticket isn't allowed be to protect those ridiculously expensive long distance anytime returns that stink up the system and deter the unwary ? You know, the ones which the industry says don't matter because "hardly anyone buys them" (well why have them then).

 

[A0]

Is that not as a result of the transport system rather than justification for it ?

As a Child me and my parents travelled up from Kent to Dundee to visit my sister there, taking in Oxford on the way up and York on the way down.

Missing the point - your holiday was from Kent to Dundee - you simply broke your journey along the way at Oxford and York. Anyone making the journey from Kent to Dundee would break the journey somewhere. That's not a justification for another train ticket being introduced.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, given ticketing options this was done by car, however is it really so outlandish that someone might want to book in a few destinations elsewhere in the country ? As others have mentioned, the Swiss don't seem to think so.

The all line rover could be improved for such a purpose, but as it is, it's useless for anyone other than hardcore track bashers.

Could the real reason such a ticket isn't allowed be to protect those ridiculously expensive long distance anytime returns that stink up the system and deter the unwary ? You know, the ones which the industry says don't matter because "hardly anyone buys them" (well why have them then).

Given that most passenger journeys are already subsidised, basically like so many on these boards all you're arguing for is more subsidy to reduce your cost of travel paid for by everybody else. Oddly enough, that doesn't make for a good business case.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Suits me fine, but if I were paying tax in the UK I’d be rather annoyed.

It works the other way round for tourists in South Africa.
Locals get 75% discount on the daily "conservation fee" in National Parks, "because they have already funded the facility by taxation".
Admittedly it's also a way of "levelling up" in that country.

 

[yorksrob]

Missing the point - your holiday was from Kent to Dundee - you simply broke your journey along the way at Oxford and York. Anyone making the journey from Kent to Dundee would break the journey somewhere. That's not a justification for another train ticket being introduced.



Given that most passenger journeys are already subsidised, basically like so many on these boards all your arguing for is more subsidy to reduce your cost of travel paid for by everybody else. Oddly enough, that doesn't make for a good business case.

York would have definitely have been a valid stopover on a return, but I'm not sure Oxford would have been. Someone spending a week of it might want to add in a night at Scarborough or a couple of days in the Cotswolds, which definitely wouldn't have been valid stop offs on a return ticket.

Infact I'm sure motorists do these sorts of journeys all the time, but some people haven't got the imagination to realise this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

It works the other way round for tourists in South Africa.
Locals get 75% discount on the daily "conservation fee" in National Parks, "because they have already funded the facility by taxation".
Admittedly it's also a way of "levelling up" in that country.

Er, and I've already funded the railway system through my taxes, so why aren't I getting my discount when overseas tourists are ?

 

[A0]

York would have definitely have been a valid stopover on a return, but I'm not sure Oxford would have been. Someone spending a week of it might want to add in a night at Scarborough or a couple of days in the Cotswolds, which definitely wouldn't have been valid stop offs on a return ticket.

How much is a return from York to Scarborough ? Not much, and certainly little enough that if anyone decided on the spur of the moment to head that way they could.

On the Cotswolds - one of these for £10.50 / adult a day would be far more practical https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets-railcards-offers/promotions/cotswolds-one-day-discoverer/

Infact I'm sure motorists do these sorts of journeys all the time, but some people haven't got the imagination to realise this.

Very few do - if you're doing a journey such as Kent to Dundee which is about a 9 hour journey (using Canterbury as the start point), then most motorists will plan a fairly direct route with a couple of stops along the way to break the journey up, but those breaks will be fairly close to the journey and may include an overnight stop and are probably no more than 1 hour away from the route being taken. You're not suddenly going to pivot and make the journey via Chepstow and Worthing for example.