Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Not true at all and indeed after they disappeared, DfT ordered Virgin (as was) to sort out the cliff edge. They didn't "disappear", they never existed. The WCML never had a Business Saver (BVR) ticket; this was an innovation of GNER and was copied I think by MML and GWR. It was done by way...
www.railforums.co.uk
...there has been discussion of the LNER single fare pricing move and how it disadvantages certain groups, as well as meaning a near across-the-board 4% increase.
This being the case, is there a better way? Obviously we don't have figures, but we do know that the DfT won't be adding any more subsidy, so any suggestions need to be revenue neutral compared to the old fare structure with returns, either by charging some people more for others being charged less, or by genuinely growing revenue.
The comment I made that started this was:
An interesting question is whether you could do something like increase the Anytime Single from its current rate but make it something required only for morning travel. WMT sort of currently have that, with the Off Peak Day Single and Return carrying no evening restrictions, as a result of which Anytime Day Single into London and Off Peak Day Single back is cheaper for some flows than an Anytime Day Return (oops!) and if you have a Network Railcard it's cheaper on pretty much every flow!
To be fair, the trial didn't come with a rise baked in, and nobody has said that the rise is actually there in connection with the changes.
I'd say the Avanti West Coast situation with Off Peak Single vs Return fares is much fairer anyway. It's reasonable to give a discount to someone who's going both ways because they're locked in, and won't fly the other way.
The way LNER have done it, with a 10% rise and no discount for returning by rail, they'll likely face more competitive pressure from Lumo and the airlines now than last year, not less, as they hope.
I'd say the Avanti West Coast situation with Off Peak Single vs Return fares is much fairer anyway. It's reasonable to give a discount to someone who's going both ways because they're locked in, and won't fly the other way.
The 70% is *just about* low enough that I will do single or three-point journeys by rail which I wouldn't otherwise. Go to 60% and I'd be tempted to agree with you. Though the simplicity of single fare pricing is still compelling.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The other way of looking at that, of course, is that you might get business from people who'll fly both ways if hit by the outrageous level of (Super) Off Peak Singles in the old system.
The other way of looking at that, of course, is that you might get business from people who'll fly both ways if hit by the outrageous level of (Super) Off Peak Singles in the old system.
Not true at all and indeed after they disappeared, DfT ordered Virgin (as was) to sort out the cliff edge. They didn't "disappear", they never existed. The WCML never had a Business Saver (BVR) ticket; this was an innovation of GNER and was copied I think by MML and GWR. It was done by way...
www.railforums.co.uk
...there has been discussion of the LNER single fare pricing move and how it disadvantages certain groups, as well as meaning a near across-the-board 4% increase.
This being the case, is there a better way? Obviously we don't have figures, but we do know that the DfT won't be adding any more subsidy, so any suggestions need to be revenue neutral compared to the old fare structure with returns, either by charging some people more for others being charged less, or by genuinely growing revenue.
The comment I made that started this was:
An interesting question is whether you could do something like increase the Anytime Single from its current rate but make it something required only for morning travel. WMT sort of currently have that, with the Off Peak Day Single and Return carrying no evening restrictions, as a result of which Anytime Day Single into London and Off Peak Day Single back is cheaper for some flows than an Anytime Day Return (oops!) and if you have a Network Railcard it's cheaper on pretty much every flow!
I am all for single leg pricing, but it should be based on halving the cost of return tickets.
It should not be used as an excuse to increase fares, either by increasing the price (as LNER have done), nor by removing Off Peak options, resulting in trains at 'shoulder peak' times requiring incredibly expensive Anytime fares (as LNER have also done).
Single leg pricing should not be implemented at any cost!
The problem, obviously, is that that would require additional subsidy input, and the DfT are not about to provide that.
I would be in favour of providing that (as fares are too high generally), but that is not where we are; only revenue neutral or revenue generative options are available.
I would be in favour of providing that (as fares are too high generally), but that is not where we are; only revenue neutral or revenue generative options are available.
Well, we'll forever go round in circles; as much as I personally would benefit from single leg pricing more than the average person, I can't support something that overall has a negative impact on the majority of passengers (who are much more likely to be doing a return journey).
Obviously you take a different approach and that's your prerogative; we can either agree to disagree, or if you want to continue to argue indefinitely, we'll see who gives up first
Obviously you take a different approach and that's your prerogative; we can either agree to disagree, or if you want to continue to argue indefinitely, we'll see who gives up first
To be fair, this thread is more about whether there's a way to do this with fewer people disadvantaged but within the (likely) stipulations of HMG rather than debating whether the actual plans should happen or not, which I guess is the other thread!
I assume your conclusion is "it's not possible", but I'm interested to explore what others think too.
To be fair, this thread is more about whether there's a way to do this with fewer people disadvantaged but within the (likely) stipulations of HMG rather than debating whether the actual plans should happen or not, which I guess is the other thread!
I assume your conclusion is "it's not possible", but I'm interested to explore what others think too.
The problem, obviously, is that that would require additional subsidy input, and the DfT are not about to provide that.
I would be in favour of providing that (as fares are too high generally), but that is not where we are; only revenue neutral or revenue generative options are available.
To be fair, any revenue neutral options aren't on the table. They may be claimed to be but they're not because they simply won't be approved. That's why the Flexi Seasons are a total waste of time and effort. Something needs to be at least slightly generative in order to get through, and there's precious little opportunity to increase volume when your rolling stock fleet is shrinking.
I'm fine with the idea of retaining period returns for double the relevant single fare.
The latter I am OK with only if it allows things like three point journeys and overnight BoJ where not permitted by the restriction code, i.e. effectively not just bought as part of a RETURN journey, but rather an unlimited number purchasable in one transaction and changeable for the £10 admin fee and no buy up, AND straight singles for 70% of return as Avanti did. But that's all quite complex.
The 70% is *just about* low enough that I will do single or three-point journeys by rail which I wouldn't otherwise. Go to 60% and I'd be tempted to agree with you. Though the simplicity of single fare pricing is still compelling.
Now that the prices are in public, we can show the folly of this.
Avanti's flexible single (at approximately 70% as you put it) from Edinburgh to Wigan is £66.50. LNER's new single from Edinburgh to Wakefield is 90 pence more expensive, rather than cheaper, as a result of the super sneaky 4.5% extra rise.
Even those genuinely only going one wayvand won't be making any other rail journeys, say to collect their new vehicle from a dealer or something, aren't getting a better deal.
Why does everyone here focus on return journeys? Although I do agree that return journeys are the majority, they are not overwhelming and those who do something other than a stright forth-and-back return are still significant.
For example, the following are return journeys by common sense but can't be bought as a return journey unless creative routing / break of journey is utilised:
- East Grinstead to Victoria, return to Haywards Heath
- Farringdon to Watford (Metropolitan), Watford High Street to Euston
- Euston to Watford Junction, return via Shepherd's Bush to Victoria
- London to Edinburgh via York out, via Carlisle back
By fitting anything not a simple back and forth return on the exact same route into a return journey, expert knowledge of the Routeing Guide / fare system is needed which is unneededly complicated for most travellers. By removing all return tickets, it benefits passengers and the industry to enable passengers buying the correct tickets more easily, remove unintentional fare evasion and disputes, simplfying ticket sales and encourage walk-up travel where one can decide how to return at a later time.
Now that the prices are in public, we can show the folly of this.
Avanti's flexible single (at approximately 70% as you put it) from Edinburgh to Wigan is £66.50. LNER's new single from Edinburgh to Wakefield is 90 pence more expensive, rather than cheaper, as a result of the super sneaky 4.5% extra rise.
Even those genuinely only going one wayvand won't be making any other rail journeys, say to collect their new vehicle from a dealer or something, aren't getting a better deal.
As I mentioned above WCML Off Peaks are cheaper than ECML ones because Virgin abolished the SuperSaver and reduced the Saver to in between the two in the late 1990s, and that fare then became regulated (because if you apply a special offer for more than a given period of time it becomes permanent and thus regulated, if I recall). Yorkie mentioned above that the reduction was 7.5%. The added 4.5% will of course have exascerbated this.
However it does look like differing increases over the years have made it even more pronounced than the roughly 12% that would imply.
Why does everyone here focus on return journeys? Although I do agree that return journeys are the majority, they are not overwhelming and those who do something other than a stright forth-and-back return are still significant.
For example, the following are return journeys by common sense but can't be bought as a return journey unless creative routing / break of journey is utilised:
- East Grinstead to Victoria, return to Haywards Heath
By fitting anything not a simple back and forth return on the exact same route into a return journey, expert knowledge of the Routeing Guide / fare system is needed which is unneededly complicated for most travellers
It isn't "needed"; you just made that up. In any case, reducing the price for people making unusual journeys should not be at the expense of the majority being required to pay more.
As I mentioned above WCML Off Peaks are cheaper than ECML ones because Virgin abolished the SuperSaver and reduced the Saver to in between the two in the late 1990s, and that fare then became regulated (because if you apply a special offer for more than a given period of time it becomes permanent and thus regulated, if I recall). Yorkie mentioned above that the reduction was 7.5%. The added 4.5% will of course have exascerbated this.
You are the one supporting LNER's actions; we aren't arguing against single leg pricing per se. We are debating how LNER are doing it and your argument is that you support what they are doing, despite admitting it has resulted in walk up travel being disproportionately expensive
I really like the principle of single leg pricing; I'm sad to hear LNER have added a 4.5% price increase while introducing theirs.
The main ways in which single leg pricing is better, as far as I can see:
-No penalty for triangular journeys
-No penalty for one-way journeys, particularly if you make them frequently
-The option of mixing and matching ticket types in both ways, such as a felxible ticket one way, and an advance the other way.
This final point could reduce or increase revenue, depending on whether the main move is from people currently buying returns, going to advance one way, flexible single the other, or from people currently buying advances both ways currently.
Avanti's singles at 70% of the return fare is pretty useless here, in my opinion. As soon as you need a flexible ticket in one direction (whether you need the flexibility or whether there simply aren't any advance tickets in one direction), it is cheaper to buy a return, as the advances won't be less than 30% of a return, so buying, say, an off-peak single plus an advance is never cheaper than buying an off-peak return. Before I needed to use avanti, almost all my rail tickets were advances, because on many routes flexible tickets are simply too expensive (for me).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To be fair, any revenue neutral options aren't on the table. They may be claimed to be but they're not because they simply won't be approved. That's why the Flexi Seasons are a total waste of time and effort. Something needs to be at least slightly generative in order to get through, and there's precious little opportunity to increase volume when your rolling stock fleet is shrinking.
Your argument is that the majority should pay more to enable the minority to pay less?
I refer you to @Starmill 's post above; any comment on that?
Should people who return back to their origin pah more in order to enable people doing what you do to pay less though?
This is effectively already treated as if it were a return; it would cost you no more than if you went to Watford High St by train in both directions
Again this is effectively already treated as a return as this is already implemented as genuine single leg pricing.
Before single leg pricing was introduced, this was cheaper; you have destroyed your own argument (no surprise there).
It isn't "needed"; you just made that up. In any case, reducing the price for people making unusual journeys should not be at the expense of the majority being required to pay more.
Do you have evidence of that? Also even if this is true, does it justify increasing fares?
Remove them? You won't be entering into any disputes? I don't think so somehow.
LNER have not actually done that though.
Increasing the cost of walk up travel to £160 each way on shoulder peak services encourages travel?
Are you sure LNER aren't trying to deter walk up travel and push people into Advances?
Increasing the cost of walk up travel for the majority of people, who do return journeys, encourages walk up travel?
But only if you defer your return journey to a second purchase.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And yet you still support what LNER have done?
You are the one supporting LNER's actions; we aren't arguing against single leg pricing per se. We are debating how LNER are doing it and your argument is that you support what they are doing, despite admitting it has resulted in walk up travel being disproportionately expensive
Of course I support single-leg pricing AND removing return tickets, but I still think keeping 3 tiers of walk-up is better than what LNER has done now (which results in a massive increase in fares in shoulder peak both ways).
However, keeping all 3 tiers of walk up will lead to an even greater increase of return fares for people doing a simple return journey in the same time band, for example, both ways super off-peak if the scheme is revenue-neutral, because even those who travel peak out, shoulder peak back will have a fare decrease compared to the current scheme. So if both keeping fares fair, and keeping revenue neutral have to be satisfied, the price of a simple return has to be increased a lot. It's now 4.5% increase for a simple super off-peak return but what you are proposing may lead to a 10% increase for a super off-peak return instead if there is an Off-Peak (shoulder peak) single.
Couldn't you just scrap singles altogether and move everyone to price elastic pricing aka 'advance' fares on long distance trains.
If you removed some old outdated terms such as you can't change the tickets and let people change what the time is until departure for free (if it's the same price or less) or have to pay the difference then who realistically loses out.
Alternatively you could have clauses such as a 'Saver' fare which locks the fare and you can't change it without a fee and 'Flexible' fares which allows the above for a small premium. It works on pretty much every other long distance travel without issue including both coaches and air travel plus hotels and well pretty much everything but trains in the UK.
If you removed some old outdated terms such as you can't change the tickets and let people change what the time is until departure for free (if it's the same price or less) or have to pay the difference then who realistically loses out.
Alternatively you could have clauses such as a 'Saver' fare which locks the fare and you can't change it without a fee and 'Flexible' fares which allows the above for a small premium. It works on pretty much every other long distance travel without issue including both coaches and air travel plus hotels and well pretty much everything but trains in the UK.
Aren't your two paragraphs here literally contradicting each other?
Either you make changes free for all tickets, as you suggest in the top paragraph,
or you limit flexibility (whether through changing the ticket or flexible validity) to the more expensive anytime/off-peak/super-off-peak tickets, as now?
If you removed some old outdated terms such as you can't change the tickets and let people change what the time is until departure for free (if it's the same price or less) or have to pay the difference then who realistically loses out.
Main issue is that trains can then genuinely get full and sell out (rather than faux-sell out as at present), and fares can get very high if there isn't the walk up fare as a cap.
Alternatively you could have clauses such as a 'Saver' fare which locks the fare and you can't change it without a fee and 'Flexible' fares which allows the above for a small premium. It works on pretty much every other long distance travel without issue including both coaches and air travel plus hotels and well pretty much everything but trains in the UK.
It doesn't "work perfectly well" for those of us who compare trains to cars and don't generally fly or use coaches domestically due to that exact reason - the need to commit to a time well ahead to avoid very high costs. Single fare pricing would make me drive a bit less. This (without off peak caps) would make me drive a lot more. It's the reason I've done a Eurostar day trip precisely once in the 22 years I've now lived in easy reach of it - the fares are simply too high for a day trip "on spec" or near the time of travel.
(It's a different debate, in any case - seek out threads on airline-style pricing and true compulsory reservation, there have been a few)
From a passenger perspective, that would be terrible as it would remove the cap on the price of advances that the flexible tickets represent
Aren't your two paragraphs here literally contradicting each other?
Either you make changes free for all tickets, as you suggest in the top paragraph,
or you limit flexibility (whether through changing the ticket or flexible validity) to the more expensive anytime/off-peak/super-off-peak tickets, as now?
I might have not been very clear but the idea would be say if the latest advance fare is £42 then that would be your 'Saver' ticket but there'd be an additional advance fare say with a £5 premium at £47 which would give the ability of refunds and changing tickets without fees if people need flexibility.
It seems fairer to me than the option of £47 or you have to pay something stupid like £96 if you need some flexibility which is unfair when booking months in advance.
I think LNER is going to conduct a limited trial of exactly that.
Main issue is that trains can then genuinely get full and sell out (rather than faux-sell out as at present), and fares can get very high if there isn't the walk up fare as a cap.
It doesn't "work perfectly well" for those of us who compare trains to cars and don't generally fly or use coaches domestically due to that exact reason - the need to commit to a time well ahead to avoid very high costs. Single fare pricing would make me drive a bit less. This (without off peak caps) would make me drive a lot more. It's the reason I've done a Eurostar day trip precisely once in the 22 years I've now lived in easy reach of it - the fares are simply too high for a day trip "on spec" or near the time of travel.
(It's a different debate, in any case - seek out threads on airline-style pricing and true compulsory reservation, there have been a few)
I understand the discussions about the flexible caps but since this hypothetical anyway there could always be a cap there (or maximum fare) which limits how much the new singles can go up to. So they can't abuse it which to be fair could be set at what the current off peak tickets etc tickets are. There's no reason to hide that either. Agreed though 100% that a cap would be needed mind.
Right now the system is unfair on people who know they want to travel somewhere but aren't 100% sure whether the timing will be right 2 months down the line. They're pretty much stuck in a limbo of risk an advance or prey the fares don't go up since the prices of singles are deliberately overinflated to cater for advance fares.
Alternatively you could leave the open tickets there for people who want them hidden in some sub menu for whatever reason but not sure why anyone would as the flexible single would always be cheaper. I do understand what your saying though.
Returns I do believe there should still be open tickets though which include allowing to do intermediate journeys as there's genuine reasons for them which should be allowed to be mismatched with whatever type of ticket you bought going out. I'd imagine most people would choose a flexible advance if you could though.
This final point could reduce or increase revenue, depending on whether the main move is from people currently buying returns, going to advance one way, flexible single the other, or from people currently buying advances both ways currently.
LNER already offer that and have done for many years, the SSU ticket type was is a single at half the return, so that you're not overcharged if you use an Advance the other way (even a Lumo, Grand Central or Hull Trains advance).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As I mentioned above WCML Off Peaks are cheaper than ECML ones because Virgin abolished the SuperSaver and reduced the Saver to in between the two in the late 1990s, and that fare then became regulated (because if you apply a special offer for more than a given period of time it becomes permanent and thus regulated, if I recall). Yorkie mentioned above that the reduction was 7.5%. The added 4.5% will of course have exascerbated this.
However it does look like differing increases over the years have made it even more pronounced than the roughly 12% that would imply.
Which only goes to show why the Avanti West Coast / GWR ratios for singles are better than the new LNER option.
It just goes to show the truth of what we've all said for years whenever @Bletchleyite has brought it up, which is that you can't have the purist version of single fare pricing without paying substantially more. It makes good sense to offer returns at slightly less than two singles, as a small bulk discount. Nearly all businesses do this in principle.
It would be possible (but potentially route restrictive for every ticket, which would be less of a problem if only singles were sold) but changing to it without increasing subsidy would involve winners and losers so would be unacceptable to many on this forum.
Charging per mile seems an easy answer, but doesn’t work well in practice.
What about Sheffield to Matlock where the railway forces a double-back which accumulates mileage, but the competing express bus is currently £2 each way.
That is a bit of an unreasonable question! The cost per mile would be whatever the rail distance was, presumably, like the system of many rail administrations in days gone by. I should imagine any system of rate per mile would have to have a tapering scale depending on the quantity of miles bought. The differences between alternative routes would either be an averaging (if the difference is not too great) or have route specific tickets only. As to whether every line had the same scale I presume is where the discounts/subsidies come in (it is not uncommon for overseas railways* operating this system to have 'tarriff-kilometres' rather than actual, with inflated or reduced distances to reflect higher costs/economically depressed areas/rail line indirect etc). Clearly there are going to be winners and losers to the existing fares (both for the passengers and to the railways), especially if revenue take has to be neutral. Whether, after working all these out ,it makes a more sensible system and is worth the upheaval can be debated ad nauseum.
* Whether these administrations' system are any better in outcome as ours is probably a moot point.
Yes. My idea is to charge over the shortest distance, however if there is a routing which deviates a lot from the shortest route then the fares should become route specific.
My suggested rate is that:
* Base rate: £0.20 / mile
* London premium (applicable to the section within the inner suburban area of London): 1.5x
* Intercity premium: 1.5x (only applicable on sections where the intercity operator offers a significant faster high-speed service, while the other operators operate a stopping service on a 4-tracked section, e.g. Peterborough - London)
* First class premium: 2x
* Peak-hour premium: 1.5x
For example, Peterborough - Nottingham is 51.52 miles according to the routing data, so it converts to £10.30 for an off-peak single, or £15.45 for a peak single. The route via Leicester is 79.56 miles so an off-peak single becomes £15.90, while a peak single becomes £23.85.
York - Doncaster is 32.54 miles, so the fare will become a simple £6.50 off-peak or £9.75 peak on the direct route.
Note that although the above examples have fares reduced a lot, I'm not advocating a general fare decrease. For example, Paddington - Reading becomes 35.94 * £0.20 * 1.5 * 1.5 = £16.15 (rounded to the nearest 5p) off-peak which represent a fare increase, and £24.25 peak which is a slight decrease from the current price level.
Charging per mile seems an easy answer, but doesn’t work well in practice.
What about Sheffield to Matlock where the railway forces a double-back which accumulates mileage, but the competing express bus is currently £2 each way.
That is a bit of an unreasonable question! The cost per mile would be whatever the rail distance was, presumably, like the system of many rail administrations in days gone by. I should imagine any system of rate per mile would have to have a tapering scale depending on the quantity of miles bought. The differences between alternative routes would either be an averaging (if the difference is not too great) or have route specific tickets only. As to whether every line had the same scale I presume is where the discounts/subsidies come in (it is not uncommon for overseas railways* operating this system to have 'tarriff-kilometres' rather than actual, with inflated or reduced distances to reflect higher costs/economically depressed areas/rail line indirect etc). Clearly there are going to be winners and losers to the existing fares (both for the passengers and to the railways), especially if revenue take has to be neutral. Whether, after working all these out ,it makes a more sensible system and is worth the upheaval can be debated ad nauseum.
* Whether these administrations' system are any better in outcome as ours is probably a moot point.
It's not unreasonable to ask how a proposed mileage based pricing scheme would work; if you are saying it's unreasonable to expect the mileages to be known, I am happy to provide these.
The rail network is based on market based pricing, so this would mean some fares being priced well below the market rate, while others are priced well above it. The Whitby line isn't going to be financially viable if you charge the same rate per mile as (say) Reading to Paddington.
The opposite of the current system, where journeys of a medium distance are typically more expensive than short hop journeys! But it's all well and good to come up with a theory but how would this work in practice?
So instead of a York to Sheffield ticket, we'd have lots of different routeing options e.g. via: Harrogate & Goldthorpe, via Leeds & Goldthorpe, via Doncaster only, via Selby & Doncaster, etc etc? Sounds complicated to me.
As to whether every line had the same scale I presume is where the discounts/subsidies come in (it is not uncommon for overseas railways* operating this system to have 'tarriff-kilometres' rather than actual, with inflated or reduced distances to reflect higher costs/economically depressed areas/rail line indirect etc).
But then surely it actually becomes market based pricing in all but name? Mileage based pricing is a different concept; yes in theory you could have a market based system where each mile of track has a different price attached to it, and then add up the sum for a mileage based product, but this just makes journeys to/from branch lines less attractive and adds a lot of complexity for no particular reason. A true market based pricing strategy would not charge more for (say) Cattal to West Hampstead than it would for York to London (the former is less attractive by rail than the latter).
Clearly there are going to be winners and losers to the existing fares (both for the passengers and to the railways), especially if revenue take has to be neutral.
Revenue neutral is a theoretical concept based on the idea that some people will be attracted to rail while some may be lost and/or that some people buy cheaper tickets while others pay more. Even with powerful supercomputers running complex models, it's just an estimate at the end of the day.
Indeed, until it is worked out, it is difficult to debate, as it's a very theoretical concept which cannot easily be visualsed as to the actual impact.
I've seen a lot of people suggest "mileage based pricing", sometimes with a market based element, however there are very few instances of anyone making such a suggestion actually coming up with real figures. In the absence of real figures, it's impossible to debate it properly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes. My idea is to charge over the shortest distance, however if there is a routing which deviates a lot from the shortest route then the fares should become route specific.
My suggested rate is that:
* Base rate: £0.20 / mile
* London premium (applicable to the section within the inner suburban area of London): 1.5x
* Intercity premium: 1.5x (only applicable on sections where the intercity operator offers a significant faster high-speed service, while the other operators operate a stopping service on a 4-tracked section, e.g. Peterborough - London)
Is TPE an InterCity operator or lumped in with Northern? What about EMR services such as Norwich to Liverpool? What about 3-track sections (e.g. WCML just north of Rugby)? How would you apply such premiums for tickets such as York to Nottingham, where you don't necessarily know how far a user is going to travel on an "IC" service?
At what times? If you say 0930, would a 0925 train be charged at 1.5x for just the first few miles until the clock ticks 0930? What if there are insufficient timing points to deduce this?
For example, Peterborough - Nottingham is 51.52 miles according to the routing data, so it converts to £10.30 for an off-peak single, or £15.45 for a peak single. The route via Leicester is 79.56 miles so an off-peak single becomes £15.90, while a peak single becomes £23.85.
That sounds like a very large premium to travel via Leicester, wheras today such a premium does not exist. The 2012 train goes that way; the Guard should excess everyone on board going to Nottingham?
I don't think LNER would like the sound of that, given the current off peak single is around 3 times that price. It would make rail very attractive but at popular times, the trains are already full. So what do we do; build carriages and lengthen trains?
Note that although the above examples have fares reduced a lot, I'm not advocating a general fare decrease. For example, Paddington - Reading becomes 35.94 * £0.20 * 1.5 * 1.5 = £16.15 (rounded to the nearest 5p) off-peak which represent a fare increase, and £24.25 peak which is a slight decrease from the current price level.
So it's more market based pricing than mileage based pricing, but the market rates are detached from the optimal values based on yield management techniques?
How could the railway refuse to service this market? You can abolish the through fare but then people could simply split. Not everyone wants to take a bus. The bus may be more direct but lacks toilets, it's slow for the distance travelled, and doesn't operate as late as trains do.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.railforums.co.uk
