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!
Yes in the early stages of dementia people are capable of making journeys but I know through experience these should be regular and shorter journeys, not ad-hoc longer distance journeys.
And I know through experience that it can be done, because my father did it. By making regular unaccompanied short journeys to visit me, it equipped him to make longer journeys too, though only those that were familiar and with a ticket covering all of the journey. He was able to do this for about 3 years. Your experience doesn't make what you say true for everyone.
Because those that don't have the requisite skills or confidence and are unable to use the equipment available.
Just because the library door is open and it has a computer inside does not give people internet access. If you think that it does, then it shows a remarkable lack of understanding or empathy for how a substantial minority of over 65s feel about anything to do with the internet.
I have repeatedly made clear that I'm not proposing anything. What I'm doing is demonstrating that the foundations that underlie your case are not backed by any statistical evidence, and that the statistical evidence that is available does not support your case. Logically your argument only survives by dismissing the evidence.
I remind you that the question is "can everyone use split tickets?" And that means everyone.
Numbers of what? People aged over 65 who make longer distance train journeys and have no internet connection, no public libraries, no other facility to access the internet whatsoever, who want to be offered the cheapest combination of split tickets from a TVM or ticket office at the station?
And I know through experience that it can be done, because my father did it. By making regular unaccompanied short journeys to visit me, it equipped him to make longer journeys too, though only those that were familiar and with a ticket covering all of the journey. He was able to do this for about 3 years. Your experience doesn't make what you say true for everyone.
. If you think that it does, then it shows a remarkable lack of understanding or empathy for how a substantial minority of over 65s feel about anything to do with the internet.
So you are now talking about a choice not to use the internet? I am well aware a substantial minority of over 65s do not want to use the internet, but that is their choice and no-one is forcing them to use it. No-one is suggesting they are forced to use it. They are quite entitled to go to their local station and use either a ticket office or TVM or, if not available, simply board the train without penalty.
What I'm doing is demonstrating that the foundations that underlie your case are not backed by any statistical evidence, and that the statistical evidence that is available does not support your case. Logically your argument only survives by dismissing the evidence.
My case? What case? My posts were in response to proposes to change the system. You then disagreed with me when I pointed out flaws in the proposed changes. Now you are saying you aren't supporting any changes to the system after all!
People aged over 65 who make longer distance train journeys and have no internet connection, no public libraries, no other facility to access the internet whatsoever, who want to be offered the cheapest combination of split tickets from a TVM or ticket office at the station?
So you are now talking about a choice not to use the internet? I am well aware a substantial minority of over 65s do not want to use the internet, but that is their choice and no-one is forcing them to use it. No-one is suggesting they are forced to use it.
In the over 65 age group most were able to leave school at age 15 (the school leaving age was raised to 16 in 1972). I've tried to find a stat on pupils staying on after the compulsory age, but not found it yet - I'd guess it was less than half.
In that era no schools had computers. Everyone over 65 has had no opportunity to learn computers at school. Everything had to be learned as an adult, and not all of them have had the necessary opportunities. The longer people go without learning, the harder it gets. From your comfortable position of capability that may look like a choice but it doesn't look like a choice to me or other over 65s.
A TVM machine is not as complex as the internet, and, for frequently sold tickets, has much more similarity with an ATM or a car park ticket machine. Some over 65s who use ATMs will be able to cope with TVMs too, without that capability extending all TVM transactions, or to the internet. Capability for using 21st century devices is a spectrum not a binary for over 65s, it depends on what people had the opportunity to learn.
That's not what I said. He purchased a ticket for his destination from the ticket office, then got on the next train, and sent a message to say which train he was on.
A ticketing system that requires access, knowledge, skills and confidence that lots of over 65s don't have and are not able to acquire. That's not a choice for them, even if you think it is, from your comfortable position of capability. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a cliche, but it applies a lot of the time with over 65s and the internet.
But demographic trends mean that your assertion will probably be broadly correct in about 10-15 years time, when many 1960s and 1970s school leavers will have stopped travelling, or restricted themselves to local journeys. Only then will we be into an era where nearly everyone in the train travelling public has grown up with computers, and will be equipped with all of the required access, knowledge, skills and confidence.
I am glad I am not the only one who recognises that there are issues which preclude people from using split tickets. Magdalia has also made the case very well.
In my industry it was decided that making information freely available was better and so now my employer pays to have public access for all rather than previous distribution models. This is not advertiser funded but because it will create greater impact if more people can take advantage of what we produce.
I believe that making split tickets free to research would be beneficial for many reasons. Increased travel because of the lower prices, equity of access and for those who prefer the free market, freedom of information promotes market efficiency. Reduced revenue for firms just means adjustment of the prices to levels the market will stand. Advances, day returns etc. exist because of the desire to promote those routes/options at a fare below the flexible fare. It is unlikely that it will suddenly be suboptimal to keep these cheaper fares in place.
I may be wrong, but I suspect a big player will find a model that works.
There are no statistics directly measuring what it is we are talking about; that said, you seem to have lost sight of what the discussion is even about!
In the over 65 age group most were able to leave school at age 15 (the school leaving age was raised to 16 in 1972). I've tried to find a stat on pupils staying on after the compulsory age, but not found it yet - I'd guess it was less than half.
In that era no schools had computers. Everyone over 65 has had no opportunity to learn computers at school. Everything had to be learned as an adult, and not all of them have had the necessary opportunities. The longer people go without learning, the harder it gets. From your comfortable position of capability that may look like a choice but it doesn't look like a choice to me or other over 65s.
A TVM is a specific computer that sells tickets, while "the internet" is a network of computers; your statement therefore makes no real sense in that it is merely stating the obvious.
I could equally say "a fruit machine is not as complex as the gambling industry"!
and, for frequently sold tickets, has much more similarity with an ATM or a car park ticket machine. Some over 65s who use ATMs will be able to cope with TVMs too, without that capability extending all TVM transactions, or to the internet. Capability for using 21st century devices is a spectrum not a binary for over 65s, it depends on what people had the opportunity to learn.
OK I thought you were trying to argue the case about people with dementia; you appear to be changing your argument all the time.
Someone with dementia wouldn't be doing this; and if your argument is "but it was the very early stages of dementia" then clearly we are talking at cross purposes. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
As I said before, someone with dementia would need someone to help them make a journey that wasn't anything other than a regular simple short distance journey.
Anyone can buy a ticket without any specialist knowledge or skills.
In fact it's a lot easier to buy a rail ticket than, for example, a plane ticket.
However if you are arguing that the system should be changed, feel free to put forward your suggestions. If you have none, or aren't saying the system needs to be changed, then I don't understand why you are continuing to argue.
You appeared to be implying it was; you did earlier say "how a substantial minority of over 65s feel about anything to do with the internet"; I interpreted this as you suggesting they chose not to, due to how the felt about it.
even if you think it is, from your comfortable position of capability. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a cliche, but it applies a lot of the time with over 65s and the internet.
But demographic trends mean that your assertion will probably be broadly correct in about 10-15 years time, when many 1960s and 1970s school leavers will have stopped travelling, or restricted themselves to local journeys. Only then will we be into an era where nearly everyone in the train travelling public has grown up with computers, and will be equipped with all of the required access, knowledge, skills and confidence.
I am glad I am not the only one who recognises that there are issues which preclude people from using split tickets. Magdalia has also made the case very well.
In my industry it was decided that making information freely available was better and so now my employer pays to have public access for all rather than previous distribution models.
Increased travel because of the lower prices equity of access and for those who prefer the free market, freedom of information promotes market efficiency.
Reduced revenue for firms just means adjustment of the prices to levels the market will stand. Advances, day returns etc. exist because of the desire to promote those routes/options at a fare below the flexible fare.
OK so you can't find a model that works but you think someone will. I'm not even sure what you mean by "works" or how you would measure that.
If you think you can come up with a proposal, let's debate it.
But if you aren't prepared to actually come up with something, what's the point in beating about the bush like this?
If anyone thinks there is a better system, by all means propose one. But if it's not properly thought through, then don't expect it to have any chance of being implemented.
I've seen many occasions when people have tried to say that they can come up with a better system. But either the details are lacking, or flaws are found.
We're still waiting for a workable proposal for a better system and this thread hasn't got us any closer ...
I think Magdalia and I have both demonstrated adequately that access to trainsplit is not equitable. There are exclusions and groups who would normally be seen as in line for positive price discrimination who face being discriminated against. The elderly are just one example.
There are some long posts on here because we are dealing with multiple threads of the argument at the same time. So lets focus on the accessibility of a tool which exists only online and suits people who know about it.
So that it does not get in the way any further, the government pay universities such that universities pay publishers to release academic research to open access instead of the paid subscription model. My work is freely available to read for anyone interested as a result. The public benefit of accessing research was deemed to be more valuable than the high costs associated with paying the big publishing houses. An exerpt from the 2019 report ahead of the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is below. The REF website for anyone who wants to read it is www.ref.ac.uk
The four UK HE funding bodies believe that the outputs of publicly funded research should be freely accessible and widely available. Open access research brings benefits to researchers, students, institutions, governments, public bodies, professionals and practitioners, citizen scientists and many others. Open access has the potential to make research more efficient and impactful. In view of these benefits, and to embed open access as an intrinsic part of the research process, the funding bodies have introduced a policy requirement on open access in REF 2021.
Hopefully this means we can put to bed the fact that the government do have policies to make information available that overcome commercial costs, including when commercial costs are much higher than we are talking about with an algorithm to trial multiple combinations of train tickets.
You've not actually demonstrated that; the statistics provided, which date back to pre-Covid, referred to those who directly had internet access themselves (many of those who don't would love in urban areas where public facilities would provide internet access) and furthermore, not all over 65s are physically capable of making such journeys and yet they were included in the statistics.
There are no statistics to measure people who both do travel by train, for longer journeys not just short hops, and don't have either their own internet connection or any other access.
In any case, people have been splitting since before Trainsplit. Indeed I recall meeting the father of a forum member telling me how he used to split tickets at Leeds back in steam days.
There are exclusions and groups who would normally be seen as in line for positive price discrimination who face being discriminated against. The elderly are just one example.
The rail industry in fact makes it much easier than many other transport providers to use the service if you don't book online; for example you would be at more of a disadvantage if travelling by air compared to rail.
There are some long posts on here because we are dealing with multiple threads of the argument at the same time. So lets focus on the accessibility of a tool which exists only online and suits people who know about it.
So that it does not get in the way any further, the government pay universities such that universities pay publishers to release academic research to open access instead of the paid subscription model. My work is freely available to read for anyone interested as a result.
The public benefit of accessing research was deemed to be more valuable than the high costs associated with paying the big publishing houses. An exerpt from the 2019 report ahead of the 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is below. The REF website for anyone who wants to read it is www.ref.ac.uk
Hopefully this means we can put to bed the fact that the government do have policies to make information available that overcome commercial costs, including when commercial costs are much higher than we are talking about with an algorithm to trial multiple combinations of train tickets.
To conclude first on the creation of open access research. Printed copies are not given out free of charge, but the PDF can be downloaded free of charge. Anyone who wants a print copy can have one for the price of printing. There is a wealth of papers on the challenges of digital exclusion, including within communities that from the outside do not appear excluded. The UK government believed the relevant audience did have access to the internet to read the open access research. The UK government therefore paid and continue to pay (and it is not cheap).
IF the UK government believed that it was beneficial for people to be able to obtain the cheapest fare for the journey they make then paying for an algorithm to obtain the cheapest fare would be well within the bounds of possibility.
This thread was to discuss whether it would be useful to reach a point where the split ticket was the default, not something which required internet research.
To conclude first on the creation of open access research. Printed copies are not given out free of charge, but the PDF can be downloaded free of charge. Anyone who wants a print copy can have one for the price of printing.
There is a wealth of papers on the challenges of digital exclusion, including within communities that from the outside do not appear excluded. The UK government believed the relevant audience did have access to the internet to read the open access research. The UK government therefore paid and continue to pay (and it is not cheap).
IF the UK government believed that it was beneficial for people to be able to obtain the cheapest fare for the journey they make then paying for an algorithm to obtain the cheapest fare would be well within the bounds of possibility.
This thread was to discuss whether it would be useful to reach a point where the split ticket was the default, not something which required internet research.
Where do you draw the line? If it's a quid cheaper to travel from Euston to Glasgow via Northampton, Wolverhampton, Manchester, Barrow and Dumfries, is there some form of automatic right for people to be told that?
Meet Jordon Cox, the 6ft 5in teenager with an outstanding talent for saving money. He explains how he had made his famous journey from Sheffield to Shenfield via Berlin and how he got into couponing.
www.dailymail.co.uk
...he had made a journey from Sheffield (where he'd been advising members of a local WI group how to save money on their supermarket bill) to his home town, Shenfield in Essex.
Rather than go direct, he took a 1,017-mile detour via Berlin. It meant a day's more travel — but it cost him £7.72 less than the train equivalent...
Just to be clear, are you arguing that such a tool could be an online tool, or are you arguing with @Magdalia that it should be available for people who don't use computers, such as a person at a ticket office doing all this research on their own computer and relaying the information back to the consumer?
You are or aren't on the side of @Magdalia who's pointed out that some over 65s would not have access to download this research?
I don't understand the point you are making, nor the relevance to the thread and I don't see how this makes sense.
How do you define the "cheapest fare"?
Where do you draw the line? If it's a quid cheaper to travel from Euston to Glasgow via Northampton, Wolverhampton, Manchester, Barrow and Dumfries, is there some form of automatic right for people to be told that?
Meet Jordon Cox, the 6ft 5in teenager with an outstanding talent for saving money. He explains how he had made his famous journey from Sheffield to Shenfield via Berlin and how he got into couponing.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Just to be clear, are you arguing that such a tool could be an online tool, or are you arguing with @Magdalia that it should be available for people who don't use computers, such as a person at a ticket office doing all this research on their own computer and relaying the information back to the consumer?
1) Ticket offices should sell the split fare
2) All internet search results should show the split fare (e.g. National Rail)
3) Following the closure of ticket offices, vendors (e.g. Newsagents) should also be able to sell the split ticket (which would be easy given internet searches include the ticket details)
In answer to the coach and fly options then:
4) Yes, Google results should show the coach fare as well (A physical agency selling tickets would therefore also be able to show options)
5) No, I think that we should discourage flying. But if we were not concerned about emissions then, yes, of course flights should be included.
To deal with the via examples, that is about the interface. I imagine a display that shows departure from the start point, arrival at the destination, number of changes and the price. It could look very much like National Rail does. Clicking on the journey will then display which stations the journey must pass through. Where it is a return journey the return column could (as it does now) show which return journeys are valid for the ticket being sold. If someone selects a via Northampton (say), then only returns via Northampton would still show as options. Journeys where the tickets were split could be indicated by a symbol (probably a pair of tickets) so that the user knew that the journey involved multiple tickets (most flight searches do this where there are options to fly via a third airport - e.g. London to Athens on a London - Milan, Milan - Athens itinerary).
Given that all the interfaces and technologies exist to enable either an internet user, or agency with a terminal, to access this I do not see that there is an issue.
Currently you have be an internet user with knowledge of trainsplit to use the service, and then have to go through manually booking the tickets stated to avoid the 15% charge. These steps preclude wider adoption and can be overcome.
What is "the split fare"? Is that the absolute cheapest, including via slower routes?
Also are you advocating this is done without increasing the subsidy to rail, to cover the shortfall in revenue?
If businesses and premium passengers are paying less than they'd be willing to pay, that's a shortfall which taxpayers have to pick up; while I personally would be happy to pay more taxes to fund lower fares, would this be palatable to the wider electroate?
Would you also do this without increasing capacity?
3) Following the closure of ticket offices, vendors (e.g. Newsagents) should also be able to sell the split ticket (which would be easy given internet searches include the ticket details)
So you go into a newsagents, get to the front of the queue, ask for a London to Glasgow ticket and they then describe the results to you, which could include slower routes, you then think about it, request your reservations etc while the person behind you waits to buy some milk?
Do you think a search for London to Glasgow is going to be really quick and easy if it's searching for trains, coaches, planes, each covering multiple indirect routes in case they are cheaper, and looking at splitting at every single calling point for each service on every itinerary?
And then the customer has to think about which to go for... and potentially having this read out to them at a newsagent shop.
To deal with the via examples, that is about the interface. I imagine a display that shows departure from the start point, arrival at the destination, number of changes and the price. It could look very much like National Rail does. Clicking on the journey will then display which stations the journey must pass through.
Where it is a return journey the return column could (as it does now) show which return journeys are valid for the ticket being sold. If someone selects a via Northampton (say), then only returns via Northampton would still show as options. Journeys where the tickets were split could be indicated by a symbol (probably a pair of tickets) so that the user knew that the journey involved multiple tickets (most flight searches do this where there are options to fly via a third airport - e.g. London to Athens on a London - Milan, Milan - Athens itinerary).
Given that all the interfaces and technologies exist to enable either an internet user, or agency with a terminal, to access this I do not see that there is an issue.
Currently you have be an internet user with knowledge of trainsplit to use the service, and then have to go through manually booking the tickets stated to avoid the 15% charge. These steps preclude wider adoption and can be overcome.
OK, putting the other modes fantasy stuff aside, so you want the Government to require NRE and all TOCs to switch to the provider used by Trainsplit and for everyone to be offered the price paid by Trainsplit users, but you have no suggestions for how the huge shortfall in revenue would be funded, nor how the increase in capacity which would be required would be funded.
All retail mediums should have access to the same list of fares, exactly as I have described, and should make that available to those who wish to ask.
IF a retailer finds that offering tickets is beneficial then they would be happy selling to someone "at the front of the queue". IF a retailer found not offering tickets was better then they do not need to offer tickets. IF it then turns out that no physical outlet is willing to sell tickets then we are probably talking about community hubs, rail is not the only thing people can use more efficiently if helped to use online sources.
I find the trainsplit site produces results reasonably quickly so I am not sure what you are on about saying searching will take time. Adding coach may take longer, but again computing only ever speeds up so maybe that will be quick enough.
I am not going to build the process, website or otherwise. That is not my specialism. I am merely saying it could be done and providing an example of how simple the user interface could be.
In terms of the very specifics. IF the trainsplit provider has intellectual property rights on the identification of fare combinations from the fares database then yes they would need paying for those intellectual property rights. Again the cost would be far lower than the government pays to make access to other services more equitable.
IF a retailer finds that offering tickets is beneficial then they would be happy selling to someone "at the front of the queue". IF a retailer found not offering tickets was better then they do not need to offer tickets. IF it then turns out that no physical outlet is willing to sell tickets then we are probably talking about community hubs, rail is not the only thing people can use more efficiently if helped to use online sources.
Indeed, have you seen how long it can take on rivals such as Trainpal (which only provide one split point)?
If you want a good example search try something complicated including multiple changes and potential routes, such as Matlock to Formby. Look at cheap vs fast options.
Going back to the newsagent idea, how long might it take for someone without internet access who is asking a newsagent to go through the possible itineraries and pricing options?
so I am not sure what you are on about saying searching will take time. Adding coach may take longer, but again computing only ever speeds up so maybe that will be quick enough.
Adding additional modes and potential itineraries increases not only the complexity of the search from the point of view of collating all the potential fares, but also there is the fact the results have to be displayed and the customer needs to consider the purchase. These days people overwhelmingly prefer to look for themselves online rather than have someone read out the options for them.
I am not going to build the process, website or otherwise. That is not my specialism. I am merely saying it could be done and providing an example of how simple the user interface could be.
In terms of the very specifics. IF the trainsplit provider has intellectual property rights on the identification of fare combinations from the fares database then yes they would need paying for those intellectual property rights. Again the cost would be far lower than the government pays to make access to other services more equitable.
That's not the costs I am talking about! Look at how much can be saved, particularly when travelling on TOCs such as CrossCountry, and particularly when travelling at peak times. If all the people/businesses who are currently prepared to pay the higher price suddenly pay the sort of price that anyone who is price sensitive is currently paying, that's going to be many millions of pounds in lost revenue for the industry. Furthermore, increased demand would result in more overcrowding occuring than at present. How would you address that?
Reducing the rail industry's income cannot be done without a plan for how you'd address the shortfall.
Trainsplit are allowed to offer people the saving without the shortfall being an issue. However, if it is done by another agency then suddenly there is a revenue shortfall that needs to be explained. Presumably trainsplit will sell tickets to anyone who uses the site without "concern" that they are reducing rail revenue by too much.
There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same result as trainsplit, but trainsplit has an algorithm that would need to be paid for?
I suspect what is really being said is that trainsplit would like to be the only people who offered the service.
To my knowledge chester-le-track sold tickets, I never used them so cannot comment on whether they offered a full set of split tickets where the results came from a single search request. I assume they did not, but am happy to be proven wrong.
Of course; businesses are content to pay hundreds of pounds for peak time travel, as are people who are well off or even just comfortably off, these tickets subsidise the cheaper tickets.
Trainsplit is more for people who are either on a budget, or want to be sure of the fastest option, or who want advanced options such as layovers.
Business users are content to pay a premium, and if you no longer want to take their money, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Nearly all rail users have heard of split ticketing; if they are not price sensitive they will pay the premium and not be too fussed but if they are price sensitive and may otherwise be lost to other modes (such as the private car) then Trainsplit gives the rail industry the chance to grow the market.
Trainsplit are growing the market by appealing to people on a budget and encouraging people who may otherwise not travel by train, to do so.
In fact I put it to director of a TOC that split ticketing grows the market, and they agreed.
Are you familiar with market based pricing and yield managment techniques?
Are you familiar with air pricing models, including it being potentially cheaper to return than travel one-way, it can be cheaper to go further, special offers, loyalty points and much more? The railways are learning some of the yield management techniques which airlines have adopted for quite some time.
I refer you to post #30 ; any vendor can use the service. There is nothing to stop you forming your own retail company, using the same service, and charging zero percent share of savings to your customers.
I've not heard them say that, but any company could use the same service and set up a rival site which could offer the same splits and the same itineraries.
To my knowledge chester-le-track sold tickets, I never used them so cannot comment on whether they offered a full set of split tickets where the results came from a single search request. I assume they did not, but am happy to be proven wrong.
Trainsplit are allowed to offer people the saving without the shortfall being an issue. However, if it is done by another agency then suddenly there is a revenue shortfall that needs to be explained. Presumably trainsplit will sell tickets to anyone who uses the site without "concern" that they are reducing rail revenue by too much.
There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same result as trainsplit, but trainsplit has an algorithm that would need to be paid for?
I suspect what is really being said is that trainsplit would like to be the only people who offered the service.
To my knowledge chester-le-track sold tickets, I never used them so cannot comment on whether they offered a full set of split tickets where the results came from a single search request. I assume they did not, but am happy to be proven wrong.
1. Any retailer can offer splits (toc or not) however the additional costs of doing so aren't covered by standard retail commission so they often don't opt for it even when using a supplier that supports split calculation. On top of this the DFT/Treasury will not fund train operators to contract a split capable solution due to a) higher retailing cost & b) loss of revenue that might not be recouped with additional demand/might cause demand in excess of capacity.
2. Correct, anyone could produce the same results as the supplier TrainSplit use (FastJP). To do it programatically it'd take years of research and development. Alternatively they can pay to use a solution like ours where the legwork has already been done.
Any shop/person can retail tickets via the RDG travel agent license scheme (an example license option if retail volumes are low). I believe they would need to contract an approved ticket issuing system provider/create their own system and get it approved. They would also need to hold a bond/appropriate insurance to the value of ticket sales for a given reconciliation period.
3. Any commercial (for profit) entity would prefer you to use their service over a competitor.
Trainsplit help everyone save money (which I contest, but lets go with it) and as a result people pay less for rail travel - TRUE/FALSE
The rail companies do not receive the 15% saving - TRUE/FALSE
Trainsplit would like every ticket to be sold through their platform - TRUE/FALSE
Yet my suggestion that the saving be given on all tickets is met with the childish "how would you make up the revenue shortfall". I am glad to see Yorkie now admitting that the lower prices potentially actually increase the market size and revenue:
Trainsplit are growing the market by appealing to people on a budget and encouraging people who may otherwise not travel by train, to do so.
In fact I put it to director of a TOC that split ticketing grows the market, and they agreed.
Are you familiar with market based pricing and yield managment techniques?
Are you familiar with air pricing models, including it being potentially cheaper to return than travel one-way, it can be cheaper to go further, special offers, loyalty points and much more? The railways are learning some of the yield management techniques which airlines have adopted for quite some time.
That's not the costs I am talking about! Look at how much can be saved, particularly when travelling on TOCs such as CrossCountry, and particularly when travelling at peak times. If all the people/businesses who are currently prepared to pay the higher price suddenly pay the sort of price that anyone who is price sensitive is currently paying, that's going to be many millions of pounds in lost revenue for the industry. Furthermore, increased demand would result in more overcrowding occuring than at present. How would you address that?
Reducing the rail industry's income cannot be done without a plan for how you'd address the shortfall.
I want the split fare to be the default. I do not worry about the shortfall because prices will adjust, or as Yorkie now admits the revenue may increase. I believe that there is ample evidence which states that there is a significant group of people for whom digital exclusion prevents access to the savings and that it is regressive because these groups are amongst the poorer in society.
Bringing in tangents about specific agencies etc is just to muddy things. My personal hope would be that a really major player (e.g. Google) carried the information like Google does for flights. I actually believe the government should mandate the cheapest fare be offered as it is a market failure that can be readily corrected.
Trainsplit help everyone save money (which I contest, but lets go with it) and as a result people pay less for rail travel - TRUE/FALSE
The rail companies do not receive the 15% saving - TRUE/FALSE
Trainsplit would like every ticket to be sold through their platform - TRUE/FALSE
I refer you to posts above; for the third point in particular see the post above yours.
Indeed there is nothing to stop you producing a rival site that uses the exact same underlying system in terms of the fares offered, with zero share of savings fee.
Yet my suggestion that the saving be given on all tickets is met with the childish "how would you make up the revenue shortfall". I am glad to see Yorkie now admitting that the lower prices potentially actually increase the market size and revenue:
How is this "childish" to point out there would be a reduction in revenue, and to ask how you would address that, given your proposals clearly would have an impact in this area.
Do you think that the financial implications should or shouldn't be addressed before making such wholesale changes to how all tickets are retailed?
Well clearly you are going to not address relevant questions regarding the implications of what you propose; there is no point in anyone repeating the same questions to you but anyone can see that you have no answers and therefore your proposals are unfunded, unrealistic and unviable.
I doubt that charging a fraction of the full fare, for the highest value tickets, will lead to an increase in revenue.
For sure your proposals would result in increased ridership; do you think that any potential increase in ridership could be accommodated by existing service provision? If not, do you think it may be wise to invest in increasing track capacity, additional rolling stock etc in order to cope with this increase?
I refer you to questions I asked earlier on this matter which remain unanswered
I believe that there is ample evidence which states that there is a significant group of people for whom digital exclusion prevents access to the savings and that it is regressive because these groups are amongst the poorer in society.
Bringing in tangents about specific agencies etc is just to muddy things. My personal hope would be that a really major player (e.g. Google) carried the information like Google does for flights. I actually believe the government should mandate the cheapest fare be offered as it is a market failure that can be readily corrected.
How do you define "the cheapest fare" and how would you mandate that? Did you read my question above on the subject regarding London to Glasgow via secondary routes? Did you look at the example I provided from Matlock to Formby?
Trainsplit will always save you money (the inequality you posted earlier was incorrect) as it takes 15% of the saving. If it saves you no money it takes zero fee.
Yes, they are a business. They'll make more money the more customers they have.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here. Trainsplit's fee is 15% of the saving so they are inclined to give you the cheapest fare with the biggest saving. The less money you pay the less the TOCs get so the DfT wouldn't like you to use it.
Trainsplit will always save you money (the inequality you posted earlier was incorrect) as it takes 15% of the saving. If it saves you no money it takes zero fee.
Of course they don't. Trainsplit needs to cover their costs.
Yes, they are a business. They'll make more money the more customers they have.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here. Trainsplit's fee is 15% of the saving so they are inclined to give you the cheapest fare with the biggest saving. The less money you pay the less the TOCs get so the DfT wouldn't like you to use it.
If passenger numbers remained identical it would cause a shortfall in revenue. If they increased then it would depend on the route.
Yorkie has posted that all ticket offices offering the split price would lead to overcrowding and a loss of revenue for the railway. I am simply saying that IF everyone uses trainsplit the same would happen.
The problem is that everyone cannot use trainsplit. Inequity refers to the fact that it is typically disadvantaged groups who suffer most from digital exclusion. Something both @Magdalia and I have explored in depth in previous posts.
I want ALL customers to receive the cheapest price available for ALL tickets irrespective of where they are bought.
Digital exclusion may in turn exacerbate cost of living pressures, as items bought online can be cheaper than in shops. In an increasingly online world, digital exclusion inhibits people’s ability to apply for jobs, access training opportunities and engage with many public services.
Recent reports suggest that tackling digital exclusion could have significant benefits for economic growth and individual wellbeing.
The problem is that everyone cannot use trainsplit. Inequity refers to the fact that it is typically disadvantaged groups who suffer most from digital exclusion. Something both @Magdalia and I have explored in depth in previous posts.
I think you are overestimating the number of people who don't have access to the Internet, if they have a local library they don't know how to use a computer, no family or friends who can book for them and still want to travel by train.
It would be great if TVMs offered the cheapest possible fare, but that isn't going to happen.
That would be great, but the DfT isn't going to allow TOCs to reduce their income.
Split ticketing is a quick fix for a fares system which can produce overly expensive fares and the current view of rinsing passengers out of the most money rather than increasing passenger numbers.
IF I am overestimating then there would be no revenue problem with ALL ticket vending routes showing split ticket options. However, there continues to be this contradiction of solving the "revenue loss". Is it the case then that people could use Trainsplit, know how to do it, but choose not to?
However, I am not over-estimating because of the importance the government place on solving the digital exclusion problem.
It seems everyone is rushing to defend a product which, whilst brilliant, should never be the preserve of a single vending route.
It would reduce revenue significantly, as the most expensive fares would be massively reduced. It would likely increase demand too, which would cost money to provide for.
It can't realistically be proposed without identifying a source of funding.
Yorkie has posted that all ticket offices offering the split price would lead to overcrowding and a loss of revenue for the railway. I am simply saying that IF everyone uses trainsplit the same would happen.
The problem is that everyone cannot use trainsplit. Inequity refers to the fact that it is typically disadvantaged groups who suffer most from digital exclusion. Something both @Magdalia and I have explored in depth in previous posts.
IF I am overestimating then there would be no revenue problem with ALL ticket vending routes showing split ticket options. However, there continues to be this contradiction of solving the "revenue loss". Is it the case then that people could use Trainsplit, know how to do it, but choose not to?
It would reduce revenue significantly, as the most expensive fares would be massively reduced. It would likely increase demand too, which would cost money to provide for.
It can't realistically be proposed without identifying a source of funding.
Does trainsplit impose a cap on the number of sales it can make? (Because if not then it is somewhat hypocritical to say that I have to provide a solution when the potential problems already exist)
Does trainsplit impose a cap on the number of sales it can make? (Because if not then it is somewhat hypocritical to say that I have to provide a solution when the potential problems already exist)
So in that way the potential for insufficient capacity has already been unleashed.
Can you please stop asking me as a railway outsider to explain how to solve the capacity problem that would emerge if everyone could buy split tickets for all journeys?
Even if splits could be offered to all (and I feel like they largely can, to those who could use them), what split do people want? What should they be offered? Just a split on the quickest route? Slower routes that are otherwise valid? Even slower routes that are nowhere near the permitted routes?
I recently travelled from Cambridge to Manchester and travelled via London, Bristol and Newport. I was offered this by Trainsplit without asking, it was two hours longer than the nearest split and three hours longer than the quickest route, it wasn't all that cheap but wasnt bad, it appealed to me and I bought it.
Splits are about more than just two or three advances on the same train on the same route.
If splits are available to all, then what splits "should" be offered, in the OP's opinion? Sending average punters from Cambridge to Manchester via London and Newport to save £1 is ridiculous and unfair on those to whom four extra hours on a train is not palatable and might see only the price and not the restrictions and time penalties.
So who decides what splits are reasonable to offer average uninformed passengers? Just the quickest route? Just the cheapest route? How do you gauge their appetite for split advances and the restrictions? Do they know their rights sufficiently to invoke them to argumentative staff on split advances? Where does each passenger strike that balance between reasonable and unreasonable? It's impossible to define. And as said, if we all pay less, the revenue shortfall as to be made up somewhere.
My elderly father is Internet connected and knows about split tickets. Are they available to all, I would say yes. Are they desirable to all? Maybe not. Especially if complex and convoluted.
As for not rewarding Trainsplit for designing and implementing the code... I know how open access research works... I've written a few; someone somewhere pays for it to be open access. It's not free. And not rewarding Trainsplit by using them once they have found a split, is not a choice I have ever made.
Can you please stop asking me as a railway outsider to explain how to solve the capacity problem that would emerge if everyone could buy split tickets for all journeys?
My proposal is no more or less unfunded than the already existing platform that would enable everyone to have split tickets. Others can conclude on this aspect as I am frankly sick of the hypocrisy on display.
How on earth are non-rail people supposed to produce funding proposals?
I am purely arguing from the ethical perspective that all that can be done to ensure access to the cheapest valid rail ticket for a journey should be done.
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.
