Should child fares be reviewed?

[Zoe]

With the raising of the school leaving age to 18 I think there may well be a case for raising the age to pay full fare to 18.

 

[185]

if you are 16 and in full time education yes (alot of pte's pay for this) however why should you get half fare if you have a job? 16 = the real world for most

True, but I think it's fair to say they would only benefit for a short time, and more importantly the wage they are paid is disgustingly low.

When I stated the cards should be mandatory (thats the word groups like Liberty start screaming over) I mean over 12s should be made to pay full if they cannot present one.

As a standard I feel that 16 and under = child, and 17 and over = full is appropriate.

 

[northwichcat]

A job quite possibly at a lower minimum wage (£3.64 for 16-17 year olds compared to £4.91 for 18-20 and £5.93 for 21+). I think the 18-20 lower rate is particularly unjust - can you really say a 21-year old will do the job that much better than a 18-year old, other factors being equal?

It's the same for Job Seekers Allowance. 18-24 year olds who've never worked get a lower rate than a 25+ year old who's never work, apparently the law states that younger people require less money to live on. :roll:

 

[Zoe]

It's the same for Job Seekers Allowance. 18-24 year olds who've never worked get a lower rate than a 25+ year old who's never work, apparently the law states that younger people require less money to live on. :roll:

From next year under 35s will only be entitled to housing benefit for a single room in a shared house. Over 35s will be entitled to housing benefit for a self contained flat. The age is 25 now but now it is to be increased to 35.

 

[causton]

With the raising of the school leaving age to 18 I think there may well be a case for raising the age to pay full fare to 18.

Well yes... but wait, definitely not. (and by that I mean a little bit more than 18!)

With my Oyster Zip card, it ran out at the end of the September after I turned 16. This was so I could finish my year of school, like *everyone* does - and then apply once I started school in Year 12 (which I did - but because the child Oyster was so cheap (£1 a day!) and the 16+ isn't that much of a discount)

Whereas on the local buses, I get a card which gets me half price travel on every non-TfL bus in Herts, and many outside. However, that runs out the day *BEFORE* I turned 16. Of course, the train tickets at half price does the same thing.
The problem here is, I was 16, but I was still in school for another half a year (from November). The council knew that, as they knew how old I was and they manage the school I go to as well! Problem was, I had to reapply, costing another £10 just to get me half price fares until the end of the school year, but they know everyone will be eligible for them so it's a bit pointless!

Of course, on the trains you then get no discount whatsoever unless you buy a railcard, which means that despite being still in school and not being able to get a job to pay the cost of full price train fares, you have to pay full price. (But I could still get the bus for half price, after paying the £10, so I used that more and the railways lost out!)

Of course there is a problem with verifying age if you make child fare up until the end of the school year; so I agree with the idea of a free/cheap railcard for children of secondary school age.

[Summary: Let children have child fares while they are in compulory education!]

Not too sure about when they are in 16-18 education (sixth form/college as will be compulsory soon) as I have plenty time for an evening/weekend job to afford train fares, or at least a railcard!

 

[northwichcat]

From next year under 35s will only be entitled to housing benefit for a single room in a shared house. Over 35s will be entitled to housing benefit for a self contained flat. The age is 25 now but now it is to be increased to 35.

I can only think of two things that the government's changed that I'm happy with:
1. The scrapping of ID cards
2. The raising of the personal allowance before you pay income tax (although it's effectively offset by VAT rises and other cutbacks.)

Having a 35 year old entitlement is just stupid when MPs like Luciana Berger, Jo Swinson and Pamela Nash are all under 35 and can claim second homes. On the same basis should the second home be with their parents and their main home be a room in a shared house?

 

[Zoe]

But you could argue that over 13s should have to pay full fare as they can get a paper round. I don't think anyone would support that.

 

[yorksrob]

Not on a lot of routes in the North West on Saturdays. There's frequently adults left unable to board on platforms, while the train is packed with kids who either haven't paid or have paid half-fare and then the operator may have to compensate/refund passengers who weren't able to board and have already purchase a full price ticket.

This is certainly true about overcrowding. And I think those not paying at all would be better dealt with by the guard doing his rounds more often.

But on balance, I think the railway would lose more than it would gain.

 

[MadCommuter]

I think the system is fair as it is. However, 2 things annoy me.

Firstly schoolchildren travelling one or two stops for free. I have no solution for this, but they take up peak time seats, don't bother buying a ticket and delay the train as there can be 40+ of them on the train I board each morning (ScotRail area). Perhaps a few random barrier checks might help, but I don't suppose its financially viable.

Secondly, is ScotRail's summer promotion where kids go free with an adult. I don't know the figures, but often families return from their shopping trip, again taking peak time seats and season tickets holders have to stand.

I'm all for encoraging people onto rail, but it has to be thought about so as not to convenience those that pay hundreds a year to get to work.

 

[Greenback]

I would like to add my support for those calling for the 50% discount age to be raised.

I don't really see any justification for the idea that child fares are somehow subsidised by full fare payers. Most places are happy to give child discounts - without them places like football clubs run the risk of losing a lot of revenue from the adults that accompany the children.

 

[Anvil1984]

Now you're starting to make huge generalisations.

Well that's the TOCs fault then really isn't it? If Northern (who I presume you're hinting at) don't enforce "buy before you board" then the inevitable happens. There has been many threads about this recently.

Where penalties are in place, the situation is different. From my observations, most young people pay for tickets on Merseyrail and Manchester Metrolink.

Yes but a lot of people are against Penalty / Standard Fares including myself in the majority of cases. However you can't blame Northern failing to enforce the buy before you board on the kids travelling free, the kids know if they get on and refuse to give money or details there is naff all we can do about it unless a station en-route is BTP manned or there is barriers (automatic or random block) at there destination station. They know due to child protection issues that we can not chuck them off otherwise we (the staff) will get into trouble, its a sodding minefield.

It may be a generalisation but I would say kids make up the majority of the evaders (I have a large group of them each morning on way to school who deliberately get on from the furthest door to me as they are going to the next stop and hope I wont make it through)

 

[WestCoast]

I can see the point you are making. DB in Germany got a serious telling off for chucking kids off their trains.. Are you allowed to tell them to get off at staffed stations, or just BTP manned?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some guards go to the front of train and then check back from there I've noticed

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I can see the point you are making. DB in Germany got a serious telling off for chucking kids off their trains.. Are you allowed to tell them to get off at staffed stations, or just BTP manned?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some guards go to the front of train and then check back from there I've noticed

I purposely go the front then just as they see me I get to the back sharpish, they still dodge but it don't half frustrate them lol

 

[northwichcat]

I purposely go the front then just as they see me I get to the back sharpish, they still dodge but it don't half frustrate them lol

There's some Hartford High pupils travelling between Northwich and Greenbank who seem to play 'hide from the conductor.'

 

[WestCoast]

Hide from the conductor is a game that's been going on for years! One of my elderly relatives can recall that he did it with friends on the trams! Nevertheless some people have a sudden urge to go to the toilet when they see the guard - and its not just school pupils that do that!

 

[western Champion]

I seriously do believe there should be NO child fares / prices for anything be it trains / planes / cinemas anything though I do think the "under fives go free idea should be extended to include cinemas / buses etc on the condition the "under five" does not take a seat that could be occupied by a full fare paying adult in other words the said "under five" sits on the adults lap.

 

[WestCoast]

I seriously do believe there should be NO child fares / prices for anything be it trains / planes / cinemas

I very much disagree, that would financially penalise a lot of families. Generally, it's only trains (and leisure things) that offer child discounts - most airlines only have very limited 5-15 child discounts, or in many cases none at all.

If you're going that far, then you have to remove OAPs discounts/free passes as well. I believe there is more of a case for removing OAP free bus (and rail in selected areas) passes and replacing them with low flat fares (say 50p a ride).

 

[SS4]

I seriously do believe there should be NO child fares / prices for anything be it trains / planes / cinemas anything though I do think the "under fives go free idea should be extended to include cinemas / buses etc on the condition the "under five" does not take a seat that could be occupied by a full fare paying adult in other words the said "under five" sits on the adults lap.

I think the opposite should be the case: abolition of 0-4 going free as it encourages parents to lie to their children about their age to get free travel when they should not have it and also what about a buggies? They don't take a seat but they do take up a fair amount of luggage space

Child fares should remain discounted especially for buses and trains since it helps a child to become independent with implications extending well into later life and often secondary school pupils will be unable to walk or cycle to their local school in a reasonable period of time. I would also like to see the definition of child include those in full time further education (this group can get a stamp from their school/college indicating their educational status)
Those in Year 11 could get a letter on headed notepaper stating they're either 15 or still in education although I do not know how logistically plausible this is.

To pay for this I'd propose a minimum fare on the concessionary passes, something like 50p per journey or £1/£1.50 for a whole day's travel (compare to £5.50 per day in the West Midlands [daytripper off peak] for a day)

 

[western Champion]

I very much disagree, that would financially penalise a lot of families. Generally, it's only trains (and leisure things) that offer child discounts - most airlines only have very limited 5-15 child discounts, or in many cases none at all.

If you're going that far, then you have to remove OAPs discounts/free passes as well. I believe there is more of a case for removing OAP free passes and replacing them with low flat fares (say 50p a ride).

Yes remove them all, if they had never existed in the first place then you would never miss them. If you saw the grief our TMs have on Virgin from Nobs who insist they are children then you would agree. Simple question... Are you under five ? Yes then prove it ! far easier than are you under 16 ?

 

[SS4]

Yes remove them all, if they had never existed in the first place then you would never miss them. If you saw the grief our TMs have on Virgin from Nobs who insist they are children then you would agree. Simple question... Are you under five ? Yes then prove it ! far easier than are you under 16 ?

Nobody is denying the amount of tossers on the train who pretend they're 15 (sometimes drinking alcohol too!) yet you could at least attempt not to tar everyone with the same brush.
On a point of pedantry they have existed and do exist so it's moot to state if they never existed since we'll never know (also the title states "reviewed")

Care to expand on how it is "far easier than are you under 16"? The impression I get is that you're simply excluding more people from child discounts. After all, how many 5 year olds will have ID? It has been stated throughout this thread that it's hard to delineate between 15 and 16 but I don't see how changing the age will solve the delineating issue

Are you under 16? Yes? Prove it! (see the logic used here?)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There are some efforts being made to provide photo ID to children now anyway, in particular the citizencard scheme. At £15 it's not all that expensive

 

[western Champion]

How is it taring everybody with the same brush ? if you are honest and buy the ticket appropriate to your age then you you have nothing to worry about !

And personally I find it far easier to differentiate between a five year old and a sixteen year old than I do a fifteen year old and a sixteen year old and five year olds don't tend to be drinking !

 

[WestCoast]

Yes remove them all, if they had never existed in the first place then you would never miss them. If you saw the grief our TMs have on Virgin from Nobs who insist they are children then you would agree. Simple question... Are you under five ? Yes then prove it ! far easier than are you under 16 ?

Again, that's an enforcement issue though. I suggest ATOC tighten it up, it will save money.

It's why the free 11-16 railcard should exist like I mentioned earlier on this thread. No railcard, no half fare. Someone who's 16/17/18 can't pretend they're 10 - unless they look very young!

If you scrap child fares (and all associated railcards), OAPs fares e.t.c., you're going to lose off-peak passengers - it's as simple as that. Rail fares are already expensive - why push them sky high for families?

Of course, people try it on with the 15 and 16 thing, but with my railcard idea you just wouldn't be able to do that - as it would be based on whether you had the card or not instead of age (which would be proved upon issue).

 

[Smethwickian]

Ban child discounts but allow free travel for sprogs with adults if they can fit in the luggage rack, don't exceed the maximum accompanied articles weight and remain quiet.




No, but seriously, child discounts are very much the norm, whether it's travel, tourist attractions or leisure facilities, and transport operators would suffer in the long run if they made it too expensive for families. We should be encouraging the next generation to regard public transport as a viable option. Nevertheless, they are entitled to protect their revenue and asking for teenage ID is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

 

[SS4]

Yes remove them all, if they had never existed in the first place then you would never miss them. If you saw the grief our TMs have on Virgin from Nobs who insist they are children then you would agree. Simple question... Are you under five ? Yes then prove it ! far easier than are you under 16 ?

How is it taring everybody with the same brush ? if you are honest and buy the ticket appropriate to your age then you you have nothing to worry about !

Upon re-reading your last post you didn't tar them all with the same brush, my apologies.

And personally I find it far easier to differentiate between a five year old and a sixteen year old than I do a fifteen year old and a sixteen year old and five year olds don't tend to be drinking !

So do I but if you state that under 5s can go free then you're looking at the difference between a 4 year old and a 5 year old not a 5 year old and 16 year old.
You have the same problem telling the difference between a 4/5 year old and a 15/16 year old surely?

WestCoast's idea about an 11-15 railcard is a grand idea, although how would you prove age when buying the card?

 

[western Champion]

Upon re-reading your last post you didn't tar them all with the same brush, my apologies.



So do I but if you state that under 5s can go free then you're looking at the difference between a 4 year old and a 5 year old not a 5 year old and 16 year old.
You have the same problem telling the difference between a 4/5 year old and a 15/16 year old surely?

WestCoast's idea about an 11-15 railcard is a grand idea, although how would you prove age when buying the card?

For the under 5s it would all have to come down to proving age when buying tickets. Since under 5s are unlikely to be traveling alone then if there's no proof provided then there's no ticket issued.

The 11 - 15 railcard is a good idea but would have to have photo id to stop others using it and a passport used to initially prove the age at the point of purchase.

 

[Greenback]

No, but seriously, child discounts are very much the norm, whether it's travel, tourist attractions or leisure facilities, and transport operators would suffer in the long run if they made it too expensive for families. We should be encouraging the next generation to regard public transport as a viable option. Nevertheless, they are entitled to protect their revenue and asking for teenage ID is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

Exactly. Anyone seriously wanting to get rid of child fares needs to realise that it would cost the railway both money and goodwill. It would do wonders for coach companies and taxi firms though!

Some of the arguments that have been advanced about subsidising child fares would, if taken to their logical conclusion, mean that only full Anytime fares should be sold!

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is quite simple really. If you get rid of child fares, then the railways will lose an awful lot of its customers.

 

[Greenback]

Exactly, which means they will lose an awful lot of revenue!

The fact that none of the TOC's have even suggested this be looked at should tell it's own story!

 

[northwichcat]

Exactly. Anyone seriously wanting to get rid of child fares needs to realise that it would cost the railway both money and goodwill. It would do wonders for coach companies and taxi firms though!

A local example to me:
Child off peak rail fare: £3.05
Adult off peak rail fare: £6.10
Duo adult fare (2 adults travelling together at off-peak times): £9.15

Taxi fare (for 1, 2, 3 or 4 passengers): from £22.00
Total rail fare for 4 adults: £18.30

If 2500 children travel on a certain line on a Saturday at half fare and that number reduces to 1250 travelling at full fare then it would actually work to the operator's advantage - more seats makes the train more attractive to adults and less passengers makes it harder for ticketless travel to occur as the conductors aren't as overworked so more revenue is collected despite on paper looking like the amount of revenue would be the same.

Some of the arguments that have been advanced about subsidising child fares would, if taken to their logical conclusion, mean that only full Anytime fares should be sold!

It's not really the same - I believe discounted child fares are sold at peak times and there's no restriction on the number of child fares which can be sold for a service - unlike with cheap Advance tickets.

 

[Greenback]

I'm sure that there are lots of other exampels where different calculations come into play. Using such examples does not really help with either supporting the existence of child fares, or the argument for removing them. It would have to be done on a national basis, so any local examples are essentially irrlevant.

It also makes a lot of assumptions. The most obvious is that doubling the price for a child will lead to 50% less children travelling, and that the smaller numbers of children using the train on one day fo the week would elad to rail becoming a more attractive proposition for adults, who will be applying more.

On some lines or flows this may well be true, but we need to look at the national picture, where I don't believe it is possible that revenue will increase overall if child fares are done away with.

If I extend the argument to other types of discounts (railcards and duos for example), can we say that the fewer numbers travelling as a result will mean that rail travel will be more attractive to those who are willing to pay the full fare? I believe that is the same argument in essence.