Now the Tories are out - can we stop blatantly ripping our own citizens off?

[modernrail]

The title is purposefully political.

One of the more egregious practices that the Tories allowed to creep in during their terms was pricing Advance fares ridiculously close to the more flexible fare.

I am currently sat on a pretty much empty GWR service for which the only offer of an Advance is priced at 90p less than the off peak fare.

Meanwhile there is a gibberish not promotion on the GWR website called ‘SponTRAINeous’ that says from 28 May to 27 September, Advance fares might be available on GWR trains. No details on what on earth this actually means - beyond the position that always exists outside of those dates. The booking button just links to the normal booking engine.

Also completely mixed messaging between this and the new fashion for telling you you need to book in advance at all costs.

I have also noticed my Trainline bookings for GWR for completely standard fares keep making me pick them up rather than offering an e-ticket. Why??? Just feels like reduced options to try and catch you out.


Some GWR on-board staff are pretty decent in general but the whole GWR set-up on tickets is a joke, that a publicly funded railway should not play.

I so hope the new Rail Minister clamps down on sharp practices like this as a priority.

 

[Haywain]

Referring to your headline, which citizens is it that you want to "stop ripping off"? Is it those who travel by rail or taxpayers in general, because the latter pay a very significant part of the costs of running the railways.

Or is your post just an excuse for a rant?

 

[greatkingrat]

Ministers (whether Conservative or Labour) aren't going to get involved in the pricing of individual fares, so I think you'll be disappointed if you are expecting a sudden radical change.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have also noticed my Trainline bookings for GWR for completely standard fares keep making me pick them up rather than offering an e-ticket. Why??? Just feels like reduced options to try and catch you out

Which flows are affected? Some flows aren't enabled for etickets, notably anything cross-London.

 

[modernrail]

Referring to your headline, which citizens is it that you want to "stop ripping off"? Is it those who travel by rail or taxpayers in general, because the latter pay a very significant part of the costs of running the railways.

Or is your post just an excuse for a rant?

You have very obviously missed the point around GWR pricing Advance fares within 1% of a much more flexible fare, which is sharp practice so it appears as the ‘cheapest fare’.

Stopping that has nothing to do with the point you raise in response. The difference between the 2 types of citizens you identify is 90p which won’t be doing anything to rebalance the books - unless you advocating tricking passengers into falling foul of the terms and conditions on advance tickets so they pay again and revenue goes up in that way. Is that what you are advocating?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

Which flows are affected? Some flows aren't enabled for etickets, notably anything cross-London.

Ah to be fair I have started getting a Farringdon to Totnes ticket. I will have to stop doing it though as I change at Farringdon and there is no ability to pick up the ticket unless you go out of the station and back in - which adds quite a bit of time.

 

[skyhigh]

I am currently sat on a pretty much empty GWR service for which the only offer of an Advance is priced at 90p less than the off peak fare.

I so hope the new Rail Minister clamps down on sharp practices like this as a priority.

Careful what you wish for. The easiest option to clamp down on this would be to simply bin off the Advance fares - which would effectively be a price rise for those who are content with the limitations of the ticket.

The irony of someone complaining about "ripping off" practices appearing to use Trainline (which in this case is charging a £2.79 booking fee) is not lost on me either.

 

[modernrail]

Ministers (whether Conservative or Labour) aren't going to get involved in the pricing of individual fares, so I think you'll be disappointed if you are expecting a sudden radical change.

Stoping systemic sharp practice and becoming involved in individual fare setting are two different things.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

Careful what you wish for. The easiest option to clamp down on this would be to simply bin off the Advance fares - which would effectively be a price rise for those who are content with the limitations of the ticket.

The irony of someone complaining about "ripping off" practices appearing to use Trainline (which in this case is charging a £2.79 booking fee) is not lost on me either.

That is completely missing the point. Advance fares can be offered at a meaningful discount. They should never be offered within 1% of the flexible fare as this one was. That is sharp practice.

It is not my fault that the rail industry has allowed Trainline to dominate. Your point is also completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

As it happens I didn’t buy the pointless advance fare nor did I buy from Trainline. I didn’t say in my post that I did. I always look at a couple of suppliers these days because the fares availability is getting more and more bizarre and so double checking is essential.

 

[Haywain]

You have very obviously missed the point around GWR pricing Advance fares within 1% of a much more flexible fare, which is sharp practice so it appears as the ‘cheapest fare’.

Stopping that has nothing to do with the point you raise in response. The difference between the 2 types of citizens you identify is 90p which won’t be doing anything to rebalance the books - unless you advocating tricking passengers into falling foul of the terms and conditions on advance tickets so they pay again and revenue goes up in that way. Is that what you are advocating?

So it was just an excuse for a rant.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

A small saving is still a saving - and people are happy to sacrifice unwanted flexibility for a few pence.

You also fail to recognise the situation where that few pence is actually hugely significant - I'm thinking of Railcard holders who either can't ordinarily use their Railcard or who would have to pay a minimum fare - something which they don't have to worry about with the Advance fare being available - in which case the savings can be significant. This demographic would be more than content if the Advance fare offered no discount at all!

 

[modernrail]

So it was just an excuse for a rant.

Nonsensical response.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

A small saving is still a saving - and people are happy to sacrifice unwanted flexibility for a few pence.

You also fail to recognise the situation where that few pence is actually hugely significant - I'm thinking of Railcard holders who either can't ordinarily use their Railcard or who would have to pay a minimum fare - something which they don't have to worry about with the Advance fare being available - in which case the savings can be significant. This demographic would be more than content if the Advance fare offered no discount at all!

With booking engines set up as they are - it is increasingly difficult to see the full range of fares and the respective flexibility. I don’t know anybody personally who wouldn’t pay the 90p extra knowing how hard you are shafted if you happen to miss that train for a variety of very normal reasons. It would be very different if your worse case scenairo on the next train is paying 90p, but it isn’t is it. It is buying a whole new ticket.

Isn’t the minimum railcard fare was £12? A small difference is a much bigger percentage at that level. Doesn’t mean the TOCs need to programme those small % differences in for more costly fares. That is an active choice, so it shows up at the Cheapest fare on booking engines.

 

[island]

So it was just an excuse for a rant.

Indeed.

 

[modernrail]

Indeed.

One man’s rant is another man’s comment on the ridiculous state train ticketing has been allowed to descend into by an industry that has lost the plot, as backed up by quite a few official reports at this point. Are they all wrong in your view?

 

[jfollows]

As a political rant, this is just silly.
Advance fares have always been priced in a range up to the open fares. The train operators attempt to fill empty trains at lower rates but they don't always get it right.
Far more egregious is the gaming of ticket machines by setting TOC-only fares for immediate purchase fractionally less than the "any permitted" fares, maybe OK for single tickets but not for returns. Virgin introduced good value first class returns Wilmslow-Manchester but now Avanti prices them 10p less than the "any permitted" fare set by Northern in an attempt to deceive people using the ticket machines.
Other than advances, I'd think scrapping all open TOC-only fares would be a good move. They were introduced to offer cheaper alternatives but now they're used to rip off passengers to a large extent. In that, but not for advance tickets, I have some sympathy with your argument.

 

[TUC]

I do find it odd that you turn this into a political rant when a commercially driven railway is most likely to want to offer good value Advance fares and maximise revenue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

As a political rant, this is just silly.

Other than advances, I'd think scrapping all open TOC-only fares would be a good move. They were introduced to offer cheaper alternatives but now they're used to rip off passengers to a large extent. In that, but not for advance tickets, I have some sympathy with your argument.

Why? On routes such as York-Newcastle where there are three different TOCs, TOC-only fares can be much better value than a fully open ticket.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Nonsensical response.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==



With booking engines set up as they are - it is increasingly difficult to see the full range of fares and the respective flexibility. I don’t know anybody personally who wouldn’t pay the 90p extra knowing how hard you are shafted if you happen to miss that train for a variety of very normal reasons. It would be very different if your worse case scenairo on the next train is paying 90p, but it isn’t is it. It is buying a whole new ticket.

Isn’t the minimum railcard fare was £12? A small difference is a much bigger percentage at that level. Doesn’t mean the TOCs need to programme those small % differences in for more costly fares. That is an active choice, so it shows up at the Cheapest fare on booking engines.

The minimum fare for non-Advance fares is typically £12 (different Railcards, different terms). Some Railcards can't be used at all before a certain time (except on Advance tickets).

So if an Anytime Day Single from A-B is £10, you wouldn't use the Railcard and it would cost you £10.

If an Advance fare from A-B is also £10.00 - the minimum fare doesn't apply, so you actually pay £6.65 with a Railcard - so despite the Advance fare in this example offering absolutely zero saving on the face of it, you are actually £3.35 better off.

Booking engines handle this well and would show the reduced Railcard fare - it wouldn't be difficult to find.

It's also not a niche example - a substantial number of journeys are made with a Railcard.

 

[TUC]

Nonsensical response.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==



With booking engines set up as they are - it is increasingly difficult to see the full range of fares and the respective flexibility. I don’t know anybody personally who wouldn’t pay the 90p extra knowing how hard you are shafted if you happen to miss that train for a variety of very normal reasons. It would be very different if your worse case scenairo on the next train is paying 90p, but it isn’t is it. It is buying a whole new ticket.

Isn’t the minimum railcard fare was £12? A small difference is a much bigger percentage at that level. Doesn’t mean the TOCs need to programme those small % differences in for more costly fares. That is an active choice, so it shows up at the Cheapest fare on booking engines.

The minimum fare for certain railcards is £12. Not all of them.

 

[modernrail]

As a political rant, this is just silly.
Advance fares have always been priced in a range up to the open fares. The train operators attempt to fill empty trains at lower rates but they don't always get it right.
Far more egregious is the gaming of ticket machines by setting TOC-only fares for immediate purchase fractionally less than the "any permitted" fares, maybe OK for single tickets but not for returns. Virgin introduced good value first class returns Wilmslow-Manchester but now Avanti prices them 10p less than the "any permitted" fare set by Northern in an attempt to deceive people using the ticket machines.
Other than advances, I'd think scrapping all open TOC-only fares would be a good move. They were introduced to offer cheaper alternatives but now they're used to rip off passengers to a large extent. In that, but not for advance tickets, I have some sympathy with your argument.

These matters are political and it isn’t a political rant.

Ministers are ultimately responsible for ticketing, especially in the absence of GBR. The absence of GBR was a political decision by the last Governemnt. The new Government intends to remedy that. In the meantime, under the post-franchise commercial arrangements, the guiding mind for the railways - including ticketing is the DfT under its Minister. There is no difference between the DfT becoming highly focussed on timetable and cutting individual train services and it choosing not to involve itself in known sharp practice. The Tories let this move from the operational sphere to the overtly political. I don’t think it should be like that. It is a silly way to run a national railway, but for now - that is the way it is.

Have Advance fares always been priced up to the open fare? (Actually it wasn’t an open fare in this case)? In my recollection they did not used to be. There was always clear water between them. Then over the years this clear water has narrowed, in this case to 1%. I guess there is no concrete evidence available on the point .

I wonder if the TOCs would price like the only consequence of missing the booked train was to pay the difference between that fare and the flexible fare on the next train. I suspect not.

I also fully agree with your example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

I do find it odd that you turn this into a political rant when a commercially driven railway is most likely to want to offer good value Advance fares and maximise revenue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==


Why? On routes such as York-Newcastle where there are three different TOCs, TOC-only fares can be much better value than a fully open ticket.

Because there are more and more layers of complexity and so ways to be caught out for people who don’t have a degree in buying train tickets like the enthusiasts and the very, very initiated on here. I have gone from never getting caught out to dropping a few balls recently and I know the system incredibly well and spend thousands on tickets every year - having made a very conscious decision not to have a car.

It is always easy to make an argument for the minutiae of complexity, but when complexity itself is a significant problem, the benefits of simplification are likely to be outweighed by the downsides of a system that is increasingly impossible for a causal or regular passenger to get their head around.

 

[TUC]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==


Because there are more and more layers of complexity and so ways to be caught out for people who don’t have a degree in buying train tickets like the enthusiasts and the very, very initiated on here. I have gone from never getting caught out to dropping a few balls recently and I know the system incredibly well and spend thousands on tickets every year - having made a very conscious decision not to have a car.

It is always easy to make an argument for the minutiae of complexity, but when complexity itself is a significant problem, the benefits of simplification are likely to be outweighed by the downsides of a system that is increasingly impossible for a causal or regular passenger to get their head around.

There's nothing particularly complex about 'this is marked as an 'LNER-only ticket so you can only use it on an LNER train'. The fact that some people don't take any notice of that probably reflects a range of issues in life where they don't pay sufficient attention. That's no reason for the rest of us to lose out and have to pay more.

 

[modernrail]

There's nothing particularly complex about 'this is marked as an 'LNER-only ticket so you can only use it on an LNER train'. The fact that some people don't take any notice of that probably reflects a range of issues in life where they don't pay sufficient attention. That's no reason for the rest of us to lose out and have to pay more.

You really love your fellow man don’t you!

Rather than submit to that rant I will submit to the plethora of well put together reports on the matter that confirm ticketing is currently too complex. Actually most people in the UK are probably veritable experts in understanding complexity compared to the unassuming souls who visit the UK and have the bad fortune to come from a country that has both better value and easier to understand. There is a reason we have an international reputation on these points.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

You really love your fellow man don’t you!

Rather than submit to that rant I will submit to the plethora of well put together reports on the matter that confirm ticketing is currently too complex. Actually most people in the UK are probably veritable experts in understanding complexity compared to the unassuming souls who visit the UK and have the bad fortune to come from a country that has both better value and easier to understand. There is a reason we have an international reputation on these points.

Most people that visit the UK never use a train, and would never think to use a train - aside perhaps from an airport to city centre.

Those who come with the intention of using a train tend to use international products which are considerably better value/cheaper than domestic tickets - so rarely have any reason to encounter any complexity.

I think you'd be surprised if you saw some of the complexity in other European markets - but it's good Daily Mail print to get people wound up and put Britain down as usual.

 

[Tetchytyke]

a commercially driven railway is most likely to want to offer good value Advance fares and maximise revenue.

Good value fares and maximising revenue do not necessarily go hand in hand. What's better for the railway, three people each buying a £99 ticket or one person buying a £300 ticket?

The OP's example is a bit daft. When buying anything it's always a case of buyer beware, make sure you are buying what you think you are buying. Good retailers will let you see all the options, such as this example on LNER:


That said, for that particular train the "great value" advance ticket is £37.70 and the off-peak single is £28.80. Go figure.

 

[yorkie]

I have also noticed my Trainline bookings for GWR for completely standard fares keep making me pick them up rather than offering an e-ticket. Why??? Just feels like reduced options to try and catch you out..

On what flows?

 

[yorksrob]

Most people that visit the UK never use a train, and would never think to use a train - aside perhaps from an airport to city centre.

Those who come with the intention of using a train tend to use international products which are considerably better value/cheaper than domestic tickets - so rarely have any reason to encounter any complexity.

I think you'd be surprised if you saw some of the complexity in other European markets - but it's good Daily Mail print to get people wound up and put Britain down as usual.

The Austrian climate ticket, the German Bahncard, the Swiss rail pass etc.

These are all products that European railways employ to keep prices reasonable for their citizens.

What has our over-commercialised mess managed in comparison ?

There wasn't anything of note in the Labour manifesto to address this (although maybe the office of passenger standards may be able to look at some of the more egrarious examples of sharp practice, such as withdrawing off-peak fares to hike AP fares, one would hope).

That said, the government still have time to introduce something eye-catching for passengers this term - such as all off-peak Friday fares or a national railcard.

 

[jfollows]

Why? On routes such as York-Newcastle where there are three different TOCs, TOC-only fares can be much better value than a fully open ticket.

That's a good answer - in response to my claim of "predatory pricing" - they clearly have their place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a good answer - in response to my claim of "predatory pricing" - they clearly have their place.

They have a place where they broaden the market (e.g. LNR long distance fares are very cheap, attracting younger people off coaches and out of old bangers). They are negative where the discount is very small, e.g. the Avanti only fares from MKC to Euston.

A small number of people may value the tiny discount, but overall the complexity is in my view a far greater issue.

 

[jfollows]

Have Advance fares always been priced up to the open fare? (Actually it wasn’t an open fare in this case)? In my recollection they did not used to be. There was always clear water between them. Then over the years this clear water has narrowed, in this case to 1%. I guess there is no concrete evidence available on the point .

All I have is a memory, so unreliable, but a few years back I was going to London for the Stroke Association and they were paying, and of course they defaulted to "advance fares because they're cheaper". It was soon after Avanti got rid of Friday restrictions, and it turned out that an off-peak return was 10p more than advance tickets for my journeys, with the advantage that I wasn't committed to specific trains, especially on the way back. They were happy to buy me an off-peak return instead, I'm glad to say.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

And what about Crewe -> Manchester tickets, "route Avanti", priced at 10p less than their "Any Permitted" alternatives.

 

[jfollows]

And what about Crewe -> Manchester tickets, "route Avanti", priced at 10p less than their "Any Permitted" alternatives.

That was pretty much my point in post 13 above, just Wilmslow rather than Crewe, they’re like this in loads of places.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I suspect that the answer the OP is really looking for is a complete change to how TOCs are financed. Make it so the only way for TOCs to make their profits is by earning performance bonuses (cancellations, punctuality, cleanliness, etc) while having all ticket revenue flow straight into a single national pot. No more single TOC-only fares offering minimal savings nor capacity dumping (TPE on the WCML). Advance fares would be set by a central revenue manager (GBR/DfT) taking into account the overall expected seating capacity/availability on a route before pricing individual trains, regardless of operator.

Of course those with longer memories will remember that the danger with this idea is that the DfT simply introduces a policy intended to price people off the railway entirely rather than provide the capacity needed to meet demand. XC has effectively functioned this way for some time with split-ticketing the only defence available to passengers. And how would OAOs fit under a such a system?

 

[modernrail]

Most people that visit the UK never use a train, and would never think to use a train - aside perhaps from an airport to city centre.

Those who come with the intention of using a train tend to use international products which are considerably better value/cheaper than domestic tickets - so rarely have any reason to encounter any complexity.

I think you'd be surprised if you saw some of the complexity in other European markets - but it's good Daily Mail print to get people wound up and put Britain down as usual.

I use trains extremely regularly in Europe. Ticketing is substantially less complex. I am pleased some international travellers to the UK are able to access simpler products to use UK railways. At least somebody can.

Criticising the ticketing system of the railway and carrying out fair comparison with systems elsewhere is completely different to putting Britain down. Fair criticism of ‘Britain’ would be watching the commissioning of report after report and receiving strong and regular feedback that the system is too complex and then ‘Britain’ doing nothing about it, or using simplification as cover for degrading of terms and conditions (LNER).

What would be unfair criticism of Britain would be to say we are incapable of doing better because we are British. We are clearly capable of doing much better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

I suspect that the answer the OP is really looking for is a complete change to how TOCs are financed. Make it so the only way for TOCs to make their profits is by earning performance bonuses (cancellations, punctuality, cleanliness, etc) while having all ticket revenue flow straight into a single national pot. No more single TOC-only fares offering minimal savings nor capacity dumping (TPE on the WCML). Advance fares would be set by a central revenue manager (GBR/DfT) taking into account the overall expected seating capacity/availability on a route before pricing individual trains, regardless of operator.

Of course those with longer memories will remember that the danger with this idea is that the DfT simply introduces a policy intended to price people off the railway entirely rather than provide the capacity needed to meet demand. XC has effectively functioned this way for some time with split-ticketing the only defence available to passengers. And how would OAOs fit under a such a system?

Nope. What the OP wants is for TOCs to stop trying to tell passengers the cheapest ticket is an Advance that is priced extremely close to a much better ticket. It is really quite a focussed point.

I would have no problem if the booking engines were made to show both the Advance product and the more flexible product next to each other with incredibly clear descriptions of the respective restrictions/flexibility. That is not what happens.

I would be even more happy if Advance fares had to be at least 20% less than the relevant flexible fare as that seems like a reasonable delta for the much worse terms and conditions.

I would be much more relaxed about it all if we got rid of the rule that you cannot upgrade an Advance fare to the relevant flexible fare for that service. As it is, the jeopardy of potentially missing a booked train (because of the railway, a bus, a traffic jam, 100 other things) and having to fork out serious additional and for many people unaffordable amounts of cash means knowing about the similar priced more flexible option is really important.