Railcards to go up by £5

[redreni]

I'd be interested in the sums behind the alleged £157 average saving.

I do try to keep track of the value I get out of my Network Railcard. It depends on the basis of comparison - the main regular weekend journey I do that generates savings on paper is one that, prior to the opening of the Elizabeth Line, I made by car. I don't consider that I save anything compared to driving. All the Railcard does is makes the train a sensible option, which it wouldn't be otherwise.

There are other journeys I have done that I would always do by train, but where I have used Network Railcard-discounted split day returns because it was very marginally cheaper than a pair of non-discounted Advance Singles. The railcard saving there would look big, but is actually only a couple of quid. I've also bought Oxford PlusBus tickets for £4 with the intention of making two bus journeys that would have cost £2. There's a £2 saving there on paper, but in reality it is zero.

There will be lots of cases where people wouldn't make the journey by train, or at all, if not for the Railcard discount.

 

[yorksrob]

As you'd expect, there were plenty of other ideas / proposals rather than a simple £5 increase, however, the time isn't right politically for wider reforms to discounts - same with the various projects within the the GBR fares and ticketing function.

If they were good "reforms" for passengers, it would always be the right time politically.

I would pay £150 for a national railcard (so long as it wasn't full of restrictions to make it unusable).

 

[island]

Why is it many Railcards (family& friends, 16-25, 26-30 etc) don't work on non-advance 1st class fares?

Surely allowing them on off peak 1st class fares would bring in far more income.
I travel a lot less by train because I can't use my railcard on 1st class tickets. I now only travel 1st class if my wife agrees to come too so we can use our Two Together Railcard (which does work on 1st class tickets).

I don't think I'll bother renewing my single person Railcard next year, especially if the price increases.

The short answer is they just don't.

The longer answer is probably that RDG (or its predecessors) probably don't want to offer the discounts to those users as it would diminish the first class product, or that they don't want the discount to be used for peak/commuting travel in 1st, or the like.

 

[Haywain]

Why should any distinction be made?

I have no idea, but the poster I replied to felt it necessary.

 

[The exile]

To those saying 'only a £5 increase' and 'long overdue'.

The discount was reduced from 34% to 33.4% not long ago. Meaning we are already paying more than the likely £5 increase - over the course of a year.

So we will be paying more for a Railcard that technically offers a worse discount than before - especially those who can only get a Network Railcard.

I suppose from an industry p-o-v anyone who stops purchasing a railcard because it goes up by £5 is probably hardly contributing anything to revenue anyway as it suggests they save less than £5 a year by using sing it.

 

[Snow1964]

ORR has today published data on disabled railcards which are not going up in price. (Although this selective discrimination by type of card, rather seems to go against spirit of treating everyone equally)

Seems to be highest number ever at 312,618 although as assessibility is slowly improved might be reason. (even though hundreds of platforms are still not reachable by those in wheelchairs and/or mobility assisted)

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/awdlxheb/dprc-factsheet-2024-25-rail-periods-1-4.pdf

 

[kkong]

ORR has today published data on disabled railcards which are not going up in price.

Are there publicly available statistics for the other types of Railcard?

It's not clear to me why the Disabled Railcard price shouldn't also be increased by £5.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's not clear to me why the Disabled Railcard price shouldn't also be increased by £5.

That would probably be what Sir Humphrey would describe as a "courageous decision" in the context of the financial pressures on disabled people generally at the moment, would it not?

 

[kkong]

That would probably be what Sir Humphrey would describe as a "courageous decision" in the context of the financial pressures on disabled people generally at the moment, would it not?

The increase would be less than 10p per week.

Which if the holder is spending sufficient money on rail travel to justify a £30 per year card, is simply lost in the noise of other day-to-day expenditure.

Which particular financial pressures are disabled people under that the other railcard eligible persons aren't, that justifies them being given a 10p per week allowance?

 

[BazingaTribe]

ORR has today published data on disabled railcards which are not going up in price. (Although this selective discrimination by type of card, rather seems to go against spirit of treating everyone equally)

Seems to be highest number ever at 312,618 although as assessibility is slowly improved might be reason. (even though hundreds of platforms are still not reachable by those in wheelchairs and/or mobility assisted)

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/awdlxheb/dprc-factsheet-2024-25-rail-periods-1-4.pdf

The Equality Act allows discrimination in a positive way towards those of us with disabilities.

On paper accessibility might be improving but fitting things like lifts into older stations makes the walk to them a bit of a slog. I understand why they've done it, but it doesn't negate the dread I feel having to e.g. negotiate Slough with heavy overnight bags.

On the other hand, new and refurbished stations are getting it right. Reading is very good for lift provision and Reading West was first electrified -- meaning the footbridge was taken out -- and then refurbished with gate lines at each entrance. Although there is still a slope up towards the platforms, it's a slope rather than a set of steps, and that is pretty good.

 

[trainophile]

That would be £5 on an annual railcard presumably, so potentially £15 on a 3-year one. Still not a big deal on the scale of things.

Do we know when the increase would take effect?

 

[AlterEgo]

That would probably be what Sir Humphrey would describe as a "courageous decision" in the context of the financial pressures on disabled people generally at the moment, would it not?

Yes. Politically a non-starter. Though I agree the price could and should rise.

 

[Haywain]

I'd be interested in the sums behind the alleged £157 average saving.

I guess they look at the value of railcard discounted tickets sold and then divide the discount by the number of railcards sold. Pretty simple stuff.

 

[James H]

Even though the headline price is £30 at present, I wonder what the actual average amount paid is, given the number of quite deep discounts offered by various railcard vendors, plus Tesco Clubcard redemptions etc

It's some years since I paid full face value for a railcard

(I have Network and Two Together cards)

 

[redreni]

I guess they look at the value of railcard discounted tickets sold and then divide the discount by the number of railcards sold. Pretty simple stuff.

Yes, simple, but wrong.

In many cases the passenger hasn't saved anything like that much, if anything at all, and the railway may well have won patronage it otherwise wouldn't have had.

 

[Haywain]

In many cases the passenger hasn't saved anything like that much,

That's how averages work.

 

[redreni]

That's how averages work.

Forgive me, but I think you may be missing my point.

In many cases which count towards the average, the passenger has saved one third of the fare they paid by comparison with if they had bought the same ticket without the Railcard discount, but has not saved much if anything by comparison with anything they might realistically have done if the Railcard discount wasn't available to them.

I provided a few examples of this at post 31, above. There are others.

 

[Haywain]

In many cases which count towards the average, the passenger has saved one third of the fare they paid by comparison with if they had bought the same ticket without the Railcard discount, but has not saved much if anything by comparison with anything they might realistically have done if the Railcard discount wasn't available to them.

But that is impossible to know and count.

 

[redreni]

But that is impossible to know and count.

Agreed.

Not impossible to acknowledge, though, when presenting figures on alleged savings.

 

[Haywain]

Not impossible to acknowledge, though, when presenting figures on alleged savings.

What do you suggest? "This is the average saving but some of it wasn't really saved because without the discount the money might not have been spent." I can't see that helping at all. The figure given is simply an indication that people save significantly more than the price of the railcard. Only here does it get an in depth analysis.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Agreed.

Not impossible to acknowledge, though, when presenting figures on alleged savings.

I agree with Haywain. I don't make enough trips of significant enough value to justify a Railcard (particularly since my work pays for work travel), so I haven't paid for one for years. But when I did make a goodly amount of journeys that qualified for the Railcard, I had one and it did actually save me money on trips I wanted to make, making it viable for me to do them. That's a win for me and a win for the railway, and I'm unfortunately used to subscriptions going up as it is, so this is just another rise out of many.

The government could also highlight how railcards encourage travel that wouldn't otherwise be made, but things have to be kept at a sustainable price.

 

[The exile]

Yes. Politically a non-starter. Though I agree the price could and should rise.

Why? Given the criteria for eligibility I should have thought you can justify a nominal charge for the disabled person's railcard to cover the administrative costs involved but no more. What that level is, I have no idea.

 

[redreni]

What do you suggest? "This is the average saving but some of it wasn't really saved because without the discount the money might not have been spent." I can't see that helping at all. The figure given is simply an indication that people save significantly more than the price of the railcard. Only here does it get an in depth analysis.

Don't claim to know how much Railcard holders save on average if you don't know how much Railcard holders save on average. That's what I suggest.

I agree with Haywain. I don't make enough trips of significant enough value to justify a Railcard (particularly since my work pays for work travel), so I haven't paid for one for years. But when I did make a goodly amount of journeys that qualified for the Railcard, I had one and it did actually save me money on trips I wanted to make, making it viable for me to do them. That's a win for me and a win for the railway, and I'm unfortunately used to subscriptions going up as it is, so this is just another rise out of many.

The government could also highlight how railcards encourage travel that wouldn't otherwise be made, but things have to be kept at a sustainable price.

I agree with a lot of this, but you're reading more into what I've said than is there.

All I'm saying is if the £157 average saving figure rests on the assumption that the appropriate comparator fare in each case is the non-discounted version of the ticket actually purchased, that wrong assumption will have resulted in an overestimation of average savings. If we're discussing what Railcards are worth, this stuff matters.

 

[Haywain]

If we're discussing what Railcards are worth, this stuff matters

It seems to be what you want to be discussing but it's not obvious that the announcement that used the £158 figure was trying to go into it that deeply.

 

[redreni]

It seems to be what you wantvto be discussing but it's not obvious that the announcement that used the £158 figure was trying to go into it that deeply.

No, the announcement was picking a figure that's easy to calculate without worrying too much about the flaws in the methodology, especially given that the obvious caveats that ought to have been entered all tend to imply that the figure given is likely an overestimate.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why? Given the criteria for eligibility I should have thought you can justify a nominal charge for the disabled person's railcard to cover the administrative costs involved but no more. What that level is, I have no idea.

The railcard isn’t means tested so I’m not sure what you mean by the criteria here. I have one and I would fail any means test.

 

[John R]

Maybe there should be the option to pay in installments? £3 per month by direct debit feels fine, even though I know it's still the same (well, slightly higher) increase.

Keeping the option to pay in one go makes sense for people who buy railcards to save money on one or two journeys per year and wouldn't want the reminder of the railcard cost outside those times.

Instalments? For £35? And what happens when someone pays £3, makes a journey saving £50 and then cancels the direct debit or it bounces for any reason? Even if you can cancel the card, if it’s a credit plastic one, how do you identify it as cancelled.

The admin costs would be totally disproportionate, even for someone who paid all 12 instalments.

An increase of 16% after a decade unchanged is nothing.

 

[A S Leib]

Instalments? For £35? And what happens when someone pays £3, makes a journey saving £50 and then cancels the direct debit or it bounces for any reason? Even if you can cancel the card, if it’s a credit plastic one, how do you identify it as cancelled.

I pay £3.50 per month for English Heritage membership and £3.80 per month for National Trust membership, both by direct debit, although of course they serve different purposes.

 

[Adam Williams]

Instalments? For £35? And what happens when someone pays £3, makes a journey saving £50 and then cancels the direct debit or it bounces for any reason? Even if you can cancel the card, if it’s a credit plastic one, how do you identify it as cancelled.

I think if you were to actually do this, then:

1. Customer would need to commit to a 1 year term
2. It'd need to be digital only (most customers are happy with this anyway)
3. Missing a payment would need to mean that the railcard gets hotlisted immediately and the barcode UTN marked as cancelled
4. You'd need to treat the cost for the remainder as an unpaid debt and automatically chase for payment
5. You'd want to probably charge more than 35/12 such that customers paying the entire amount in advance get a better deal

 

[John R]

Good luck with chasing an unpaid debt of a few quid in a cost efficient manner. It wouldn’t be possible or worth it.