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!
It wouldn't. The easiest thing would be to abolish the Network Railcard, and level the arrangements between regions that way.
Having said that, if there is a move to the LNER advance / semi-flex structure for long distance pricing, and the railcard isn't valid on those types of tickets (as the Network Railcard isn't), perhaps it may be possible for any hypothetical National Railcard to effectively only be valid on regional journeys.
As I have pointed out before, a railcard available to all is a blunt instrument targetting the wrong journeys, because it offers discounts at times of day when the railway is already capable of filling its trains at current prices. Targeted offers to fill trains that are actually empty are a better use of money.
It wouldn't. The easiest thing would be to abolish the Network Railcard, and level down that way.
Having said that, if there is a move to the LNER advance / semi-flex structure for long distance pricing, and the railcard isn't valid on those types of tickets (as the Network Railcard isn't), perhaps it may be possible for any hypothetical National Railcard to effectively only be valid on regional journeys.
Well, levelling down is what this country seems to be all about these days.
Plenty of countries have a National railcard. We're a weird, backwards motor obsessed outlier in that case.
The drawback of regional railcards is if you have a Lancashire and a Yorkshire railcard, what do you do if someone has a Lancashire railcard and they want to go from Liverpool to Scarborough. Do they get half a discount ?
If you're going to have something, for simplicity it should be nationwide.
Well, levelling down is what this country seems to be all about these days.
Plenty of countries have a National railcard. We're a weird, backwards motor obsessed outlier in that case.
The drawback of regional railcards is if you have a Lancashire and a Yorkshire railcard, what do you do if someone has a Lancashire railcard and they want to go from Liverpool to Scarborough. Do they get half a discount ?
If you're going to have something, for simplicity it should be nationwide.
This is my opinion as well, Network Railcard should either be taken nationwide or abolished, and South East fares adjusted to reflect the reduced commuter demand. The railcard was needed in the first place to encourage leisure travel in a fares structure designed to make money from commuters.
Gold card in my view should be extended to be nationwide. Restrictions on Senior and Family & Friends railcards within the Network Railcard Area should be abolished.
This is my opinion as well, Network Railcard should either be taken nationwide or abolished, and South East fares adjusted to reflect the reduced commuter demand. The railcard was needed in the first place to encourage leisure travel in a fares structure designed to make money from commuters.
Gold card in my view should be extended to be nationwide. Restrictions on Senior and Family & Friends railcards within the Network Railcard Area should be abolished.
Expanding the existing NSE railcard in any significant way would inevitably involve considerable loss of revenue on IC services. The way that the Network Railcard works is that it generally only involves regional services (as in the London travel area). It's limited availability generally capitalises on excess capacity that has been provided at great cost mainly for peak services, i.e., between 4 -6 hours of the working day and none at weekends/bank holidays. That chimes well in serving the volume of demand for leisure travel in the region and discuraging driving into London itself.
So, if the card was just extended into provincial areas where the travel patterns are completely different, it's cost would need to rise to cover the revenue loss there. That would reduce its attractiveness to those in its existing catchment areas, (apart from a few at the fringes) and probably push provincial fares up too, making any notion of a 33% saving unlikely.
There's nothing wrong in making similar (smaller) regional railcards, but the absence of any co-ordination of national and metropolitan service providers always seems to be so difficult outside the south-east.
There's already a Devon and Cornwall railcard, but only available to residents, which doesn't help for e.g. people travelling between Weston-super-Mare and Exeter frequently.
When the starting point's £30 per year, I don't think a lower starting point would do much; maybe a larger discount of 40% instead? I know it would be inconsistent, but I think that's the case for TER discounts with cartes avantages as well.
I also think that there should be a national railcard at a higher price available to everybody (~£100 per year?), although with conditions like no peak intercity services (with possible exceptions like starting at Penrith or Chippenham where there aren't really any other options).
Presumably, these regional railcards are designed to help people spend more locally, so supporting local business. There is nothing wrong with such an aim.
The passenger who wishes to travel across multiple regions can access appropriate railcards for such journeys. If they do it regularly then they could buy a railcard for each region, or if they do so infrequently then advance tickets or similar would be needed. If they use multiple regions then that is into national railcard territory.
The aim is modal shift and so simply providing discounts that cater to seasoned rail travelers seems a little self-defeating, especially as such travellers would likely be on the train anyway irrespective of the discount.
For me, something which offers people chance to explore their own region and attracts non-rail users is no bad thing.
Presumably, these regional railcards are designed to help people spend more locally, so supporting local business. There is nothing wrong with such an aim.
The passenger who wishes to travel across multiple regions can access appropriate railcards for such journeys. If they do it regularly then they could buy a railcard for each region, or if they do so infrequently then advance tickets or similar would be needed. If they use multiple regions then that is into national railcard territory.
The aim is modal shift and so simply providing discounts that cater to seasoned rail travelers seems a little self-defeating, especially as such travellers would likely be on the train anyway irrespective of the discount.
For me, something which offers people chance to explore their own region and attracts non-rail users is no bad thing.
Whenever this suggestion is made, and it has been quite a few times, the Network Card is nearly always held up as the example. But it is definitely not aimed at commuters because it is generally not available on weekdays until 1000. So on its own it does little for ”the bulk of working age people”, mentioned in the first post. The minimum fare also rules out short distance use on weekdays.
Whenever this suggestion is made, and it has been quite a few times, the Network Card is nearly always held up as the example. But it is definitely not aimed at commuters because it is generally not available on weekdays until 1000. So on its own it does little for ”the bulk of working age people”, mentioned in the first post. The minimum fare also rules out short distance use on weekdays.
Neither would a National railcard. I was under the impression that railcards were generally aimed at "leisure" travel. (I'm a working person and I don't just travel for work).
Neither would a National railcard. I was under the impression that railcards were generally aimed at "leisure" travel. (I'm a working person and I don't just travel for work).
Yes, I remember it being explained that the minimum fare with various railcards such as 18-25 was also there to rule it out for normal commuting. The original student railcard must have been aimed squarely at weekend travel, and an assumption made that students daily travel would all be short distance near their university or college. Also the network card area has an extra limitation on Senior railcards, restricted them to Offpeak use.
Yes, I remember it being explained that the minimum fare with various railcards such as 18-25 was also there to rule it out for normal commuting. The original student railcard must have been aimed squarely at weekend travel, and an assumption made that students daily travel would all be short distance near their university or college. Also the network card area has an extra limitation on Senior railcards, restricted them to Offpeak use.
Yes, I remember it being explained that the minimum fare with various railcards such as 18-25 was also there to rule it out for normal commuting. The original student railcard must have been aimed squarely at weekend travel, and an assumption made that students daily travel would all be short distance near their university or college. Also the network card area has an extra limitation on Senior railcards, restricted them to Offpeak use.
You inadvertently make another good point. 16-25 and 26-30 railcards should be joined to be an 18-30 railcard (under the more generous 16-25 conditions) and the 16-17 Saver should just be the default for this age group. Of course 16-17 should be made valid across the UK with Scotland exception removed!
As I understand it, and I am not old enough to remember any except the 16-17 and 26-30 being introduced, the minimum fare has not increased anywhere near ticket price rises, so it has been diluted significantly.
To clarify, 16-17 is only excluded in Scotland on Scotrail and Caledonian Sleeper services.
I think the aim is increased patronage of trains, so perhaps getting more seasoned travellers to travel more?
IF the volume of travel remains the same then that does not bring new customers to the markets of local business, though I guess you could argue someone who was travelling anyway may now spend more in local business as a result of not spending that money on the train. I doubt you would get a 1:1 though.
I think the aim is increased patronage of trains, so perhaps getting more seasoned travellers to travel more?
IF the volume of travel remains the same then that does not bring new customers to the markets of local business, though I guess you could argue someone who was travelling anyway may now spend more in local business as a result of not spending that money on the train. I doubt you would get a 1:1 though.
I'm of the opinion that getting people to travel more means that they're more likely to spend more in businesses, rather than watching telly.
The purpose of railcards is to get people to travel more, particularly seasoned travellers, but they could be attractive to people who would otherwise use the car.
The purpose of railcards is to get people to travel more, particularly seasoned travellers, but they could be attractive to people who would otherwise use the car.
You've hit the nail on the head as to why they don't satisfy the key objective.
They get existing travellers to spread the same level of discretionary spending over more travel rather than encouraging modal shift. Getting a car user out if their car and onto public transport is much more important on many levels than encouraging existing users to travel more.
Are those really the two choices? What about spending money in the local or nearby community rather than further afield? What about travelling (roughly) two thirds of the distance for roughly the same outlay?
You've hit the nail on the head as to why they don't satisfy the key objective.
They get existing travellers to spread the same level of discretionary spending over more travel rather than encouraging modal shift. Getting a car user out if their car and onto public transport is much more important on many levels than encouraging existing users to travel more.
Are those really the two choices? What about spending money in the local or nearby community rather than further afield? What about travelling (roughly) two thirds of the distance for roughly the same outlay?
Surely the point of a railcard (as opposed to a fares reduction for the group of people concerned) was the “I’ve got it so ought to / might as well use it” mentality for discretionary journeys - helping to fill otherwise lightly-loaded trains. Not sure what the Goldilocks price for a railcard is - too high and people will never buy one; too low and the push to get your money’s worth out of it won’t be there.
Surely the point of a railcard (as opposed to a fares reduction for the group of people concerned) was the “I’ve got it so ought to / might as well use it” mentality for discretionary journeys - helping to fill otherwise lightly-loaded trains. Not sure what the Goldilocks price for a railcard is - too high and people will never buy one; too low and the push to get your money’s worth out of it won’t be there.
Considering the extant level of subsidy in those areas and the fact that fares are higher in the South l imagine that would not go down well in other areas.
Considering the extant level of subsidy in those areas and the fact that fares are higher in the South l imagine that would not go down well in other areas.
I am revenue protection on the railway and I personally think all the different ones need to be abolished and there should be just one railcard... For everyone
If you are happy to pay for a discount then you get it...
I am revenue protection on the railway and I personally think all the different ones need to be abolished and there should be just one railcard... For everyone
If you are happy to pay for a discount then you get it...
Not necessarily - it would be biased towards raising demand for overcrowded intercity journeys, where increased capacity is usually more expensive than adding capacity on regional services.
Regional railcards would be a compromise, but probably revenue positive for the consumer, and aiding the consumer on local/regional journeys (which usually makes up the bulk of travel).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There's already a Devon and Cornwall railcard, but only available to residents, which doesn't help for e.g. people travelling between Weston-super-Mare and Exeter frequently.
Whenever this suggestion is made, and it has been quite a few times, the Network Card is nearly always held up as the example. But it is definitely not aimed at commuters because it is generally not available on weekdays until 1000. So on its own it does little for ”the bulk of working age people”, mentioned in the first post. The minimum fare also rules out short distance use on weekdays.
I am revenue protection on the railway and I personally think all the different ones need to be abolished and there should be just one railcard... For everyone
If you are happy to pay for a discount then you get it...
As much as I'd like that to happen and it would simplify fares significantly, the government won't allow it as it would lead to disproportionate overcrowding on intercity services and require increased subsidy. It has to be at least revenue neutral, if not revenue positive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We can but dream, haha. A national season product realistically requires a single operator that operates at least a plurality of the national network.
We don't have that, so we can't facilitate the coordination needed to offer such a product.
I do not think it is impossible to segregate trains into services that the railcard can be used on and services that it cannot. It should therefore be fairly easy to keep the overcrowded long-distance services out of the railcard. Germany was doing this with ICE services in the past, though I do not know if they still do.
Taking the South West as an example, it would be possible to say that railcards could not be used between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham on CrossCountry, between Didcot* and Reading/London, Newbury* and London, Banbury* and London by either GWR or CrossCountry.
On the North West the relevant points would be Avanti services Stoke-on-Trent to London, Crewe to London, Birmingham New Street to London. The existence of the LNWR means that the North-West to London flows can be restricted on the "InterCity" operator from further away from London.
* here is used because trains may not stop at these stations and then the relevant limit is the final calling point before the boundary (e.g. Swindon for trains which do not stop at Didcot Parkway)
The £2 bus fare in England is restricted on what services can be used, so a similar notion with railways would be familiar enough to people.
People could be helped with the splits that allow maximal use of the railcard discounts and make most efficient use of the non-railcard discounted services.
I do not think it is impossible to segregate trains into services that the railcard can be used on and services that it cannot. It should therefore be fairly easy to keep the overcrowded long-distance services out of the railcard. Germany was doing this with ICE services in the past, though I do not know if they still do.
Taking the South West as an example, it would be possible to say that railcards could not be used between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham on CrossCountry, between Didcot* and Reading/London, Newbury* and London, Banbury* and London by either GWR or CrossCountry.
On the North West the relevant points would be Avanti services Stoke-on-Trent to London, Crewe to London, Birmingham New Street to London. The existence of the LNWR means that the North-West to London flows can be restricted on the "InterCity" operator from further away from London.
* here is used because trains may not stop at these stations and then the relevant limit is the final calling point before the boundary (e.g. Swindon for trains which do not stop at Didcot Parkway)
The £2 bus fare in England is restricted on what services can be used, so a similar notion with railways would be familiar enough to people.
People could be helped with the splits that allow maximal use of the railcard discounts and make most efficient use of the non-railcard discounted services.
There's a lot of areas where potential for overcrowding and service only by IC services overlap though. The regional discount would limit the distance that people could travel on these services adequately.
There's a lot of areas where potential for overcrowding and service only by IC services overlap though. The regional discount would limit the distance that people could travel on these services adequately.
I was trying to think of some, but did not really come up with any.
Thinking about the GWR area then the places where there are only IC services, like Chippenham, can easily be outside exclusions since the trains are not overcrowded at that point. The fact a ticket would not be valid for a Bristol to London ticket owing to the Didcot restriction would mean that the marginal effect on such journeys would be smaller than if the railcard discount applied all the way to Paddington.
Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham gave me a bit more pause for thought and led to the exclusion of CrossCountry. GWR have a service to Worcester and then WMR from there. It is like the £2 bus ticket with the cheap option being less convenient.
Of course more capacity would be great, but the whole objective is to maximise the potential of services that are not full.
