Low-hanging fruit for fare reform

[Bletchleyite]

I think I explained my point badly. Rather than 'no break of journey allowed' I mean that 'break of journey becomes meaningless'. Because 1) the cost of the journey with 2 tickets would not be more than for a single ticket the whole way, and 2) tickets wouldn't have to be bought in advance because of touch-in and touch-out. So it wouldn't matter how many times people decided to get off the train and leave the station (for whatever reason).

So "break of journey permitted on all tickets"? That's my view, though it would require sorting out some restriction inconsistencies such as those that differ between Preston and Lancaster, and that wouldn't be of advantage to Lancastrians. BoJ restriction on Advances is largely pointless now they're offered for most journeys on TOCs that offer them, while on walk-ups they pretty much only exist (apart from the utterly bizarre 8A which should just be changed to be an Anytime ticket) where you could circumvent restrictions and pay less if it was allowed. Aside from that specific situation they are barely ever enforced on walk-ups.

 

[WideRanger]

Doesn't work in practice: on any network more complex than an out-and-back line you inevitably get loops where a flat rate per unit distance creates anomalies. There are also good economic reasons that the rate paid per unit distance should be higher on the busier sections of route.

You can argue for a mathematical model that decreases the rate per unit distance as ridership decreases, but given that the stops are largely fixed on a railway this reduces to a system where the fare A-B-C is equal to the sum of fares A-B and B-C. And you still get the occasional anomaly where one route is cheaper than another.

Yes, there would be an anomaly where if a person got on a train, went around a massive loop and then got off at a very local station, they would end up paying a relatively small fare. But how often is that likely to happen, in practice? I think that if it were a significant issue, countermeasures could be put in place without making the ticketing system very complicated. And it's the case in quite a lot of places around the world with complicated metro systems.

You could have price disincentives for the busiest sections (and what I have suggested is a form of that). But comfort disincentives also work. On the busiest train systems, very few do optional journeys on the most packed trains.

I am absolutely suggesting that the fare A-B-C should be (approximately) equal to the sum of the fares A-B and B-C. In fact, that was my conceptual starting point. Why would you not want to do that?

 

[HSTEd]

Adult off-peak rail card would be the lowest hanging fruit. Easy to implement, no complex overhaul of fares needed, likely to increase overall revenue.

I doubt it would increase overall revenue unless it was very expensive.

If it cost anything like the other railcard categories it would pay for itself with a single return journey on many common journeys.

I'd be surprised if the existing railcard schemes net increase revenue given how fares have risen.
I'd argue we should kill the railcard system entirely and use the revenue raise to pay for other fare simplification that won't be revenue neutral or positive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, there would be an anomaly where if a person got on a train, went around a massive loop and then got off at a very local station, they would end up paying a relatively small fare. But how often is that likely to happen, in practice?

Does it matter if they did? Only the odd enthusiast would ever do it, normal passengers wouldn't. I know the railway sometimes institutionally dislikes enthusiasts (despite having fares basically only ever bought by them like the All Line Rover) but it's such a small number of people that it's just inconsequential.

The main issue with this is because the mainline railway is a porous system (unlike say London Underground) people would "break their journey" at a distant station and pay less than they should pay. But for contactless you can't tap off somewhere you didn't get off the train so it's fine.

 

[JonathanH]

Adult off-peak rail card would be the lowest hanging fruit. Easy to implement, no complex overhaul of fares needed, likely to increase overall revenue.

Not going to lead to a 50% increase in passengers though is it? There is no way it could increase overall revenue.

It should be noted that the railway manages to fill trains at popular times without the introduction of a off-peak railcard. Unless it was possible to have a complex railcard with loads of exceptions for special events, it just isn't going to work.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Yes, there would be an anomaly where if a person got on a train, went around a massive loop and then got off at a very local station, they would end up paying a relatively small fare. But how often is that likely to happen, in practice? I think that if it were a significant issue, countermeasures could be put in place without making the ticketing system very complicated. And it's the case in quite a lot of places around the world with complicated metro systems.

It's not going all the way around the loop that creates the issue - it's that the route A-B-C and the route A-X-C have different lengths. By way of example: there are four regular routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and some others that aren't in normal use. Should the fare depend upon which route is used? If not, which route should be used to set the fare?

I am absolutely suggesting that the fare A-B-C should be (approximately) equal to the sum of the fares A-B and B-C. In fact, that was my conceptual starting point. Why would you not want to do that?

In principle it's desirable. In practice, pricing directly based on distance doesn't really work - a kilometre between Forsinard and Altnabreac isn't equivalent to a kilometre between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace. So you wind up with an individual fare from each station to its neighbour, and combine those in some way to wind up with a price for the complete route.

I doubt it would increase overall revenue unless it was very expensive.

There was a study about 20 years ago by one of the rail pressure groups arguing that such a railcard could in fact increase overall revenue as well as overall rail use. The result might not be the same today, of course.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In principle it's desirable. In practice, pricing directly based on distance doesn't really work - a kilometre between Forsinard and Altnabreac isn't equivalent to a kilometre between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace. So you wind up with an individual fare from each station to its neighbour, and combine those in some way to wind up with a price for the complete route.

This concept is widespread on European railways - it's called tariff kilometres. There's a nominal distance between each adjacent pair of stations, but it's not necessarily the actual distance, it's sometimes adjusted.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Without getting into the complex debates over reducing/simplifying fares, two changes that would make rail travel much friendlier to people non-enthusiasts/non-experts in the ticket rules are:

1. If a person is travelling on a ticket that is invalid, but where it could very plausibly be a genuine mistake, they should be charged just the difference between what they actually paid and the cheapest ticket that is valid. With the option of recording name/address in order to identify people repeatedly taking advantage.
2. Unused tickets should always be fully refundable prior to the date of travel - or after the date of travel in the case of paper tickets that were bought online but never actually collected from any ticket machine. Ideally all tickets should be refundable on or just after that date too, but that's probably too open to abuse in the current situation where a large proportion of tickets are never checked or marked as having been used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. If a person is travelling on a ticket that is invalid, but where it could very plausibly be a genuine mistake, they should be charged just the difference between what they actually paid and the cheapest ticket that is valid. With the option of recording name/address in order to identify people repeatedly taking advantage.

That's called "an excess" and it does exist as an option in many cases. However it's no deterrent to people doing it deliberately.

2. Unused tickets should always be fully refundable prior to the date of travel - or after the date of travel in the case of paper tickets that were bought online but never actually collected from any ticket machine. Ideally all tickets should be refundable on or just after that date too, but that's probably too open to abuse in the current situation where a large proportion of tickets are never checked or marked as having been used.

I would accept the trade-off that walk-up tickets should be fully refundable without admin fee before the day of travel but significantly *less* refundable from the day of travel onwards, say only 50% or even not at all (aside from disruption). This would significantly reduce losses from fraudulent refunds. I think reducing this is one reason Northern etc like Advances.

Making Advances refundable sort of misses the point of them, but they could do with being more flexible in terms of how they are changed. So I'd drop the admin fee and let you change any Advance for any other ticket, whether the origin/destination are the same or not (or just have them refundable to a railway balance to spend later). One thing that is particularly silly to me about Advances is that due to that stipulation there is no means of extending or shortening one.

 

[quantinghome]

Not going to lead to a 50% increase in passengers though is it? There is no way it could increase overall revenue.

It should be noted that the railway manages to fill trains at popular times without the introduction of a off-peak railcard. Unless it was possible to have a complex railcard with loads of exceptions for special events, it just isn't going to work.

At the risk of tautology, the purpose of off-peak railcards would, self-evidently, be to get more people on trains at less popular times.

Obviously the aim would be to increase passenger numbers, and there has been a continuous debate about whether railcards are a net contributor to or drain on revenue. But you wouldn't need anything near a 50% increase in passengers for overall revenue to go up, given that only a proportion of passengers will buy a railcard and the cost of purchasing the railcard in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously the aim would be to increase passenger numbers, and there has been a continuous debate about whether railcards are a net contributor to or drain on revenue. But you wouldn't need anything near a 50% increase in passengers for overall revenue to go up, given that only a proportion of passengers will buy a railcard and the cost of purchasing the railcard in the first place.

I'd expect such a Railcard to come at a much higher price than the demographic ones. I would be willing to pay around £20 per month by direct debit for one.

 

[Trainbike46]

At the risk of tautology, the purpose of off-peak railcards would, self-evidently, be to get more people on trains at less popular times.

Obviously the aim would be to increase passenger numbers, and there has been a continuous debate about whether railcards are a net contributor to or drain on revenue. But you wouldn't need anything near a 50% increase in passengers for overall revenue to go up, given that only a proportion of passengers will buy a railcard and the cost of purchasing the railcard in the first place.

I'd expect such a Railcard to come at a much higher price than the demographic ones. I would be willing to pay around £20 per month by direct debit for one.

Railcards for everyone do exist in multiple european countries, examples include the different DB BahnCards and things like the NS Dal Voordeel, NS Weekend Voordeel, and NS Altijd Voordeel. It seems like a reasonable idea, but then again, just charging lower fares to everyone may be a better idea instead.

NS also offers four types of season tickets:
- All-line season, weekend only (Weekend Vrij)
- All-line season, off-peak only (Dal Vrij)
- All-line season, anytime (Altijd Vrij)
- specified route, anytime (Traject Vrij)

I do sometimes wonder whether maybe the UK should consider introducing some of these options as well, I could see the case for an off-peak only season ticket, for example.

 

[swt_passenger]

Without getting into the complex debates over reducing/simplifying fares, two changes that would make rail travel much friendlier to people non-enthusiasts/non-experts in the ticket rules are:

1. If a person is travelling on a ticket that is invalid, but where it could very plausibly be a genuine mistake, they should be charged just the difference between what they actually paid and the cheapest ticket that is valid. With the option of recording name/address in order to identify people repeatedly taking advantage.

You’d have to record the first ’accidental mistake’ every time, not just optionally, or else how would you discover that the second ’mistake’ was after the problem being explained the first time? Also, the only way to make it work reliably is that everyone would have to provide a reliable name and address, and on train staff would need instant access to a record of previous mistakes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do sometimes wonder whether maybe the UK should consider introducing some of these options as well, I could see the case for an off-peak only season ticket, for example.

Notably Merseytravel used to have an off peak season ticket but binned it off a while back. Realistically contactless caps are probably a better way of doing this sort of thing.

 

[stevieinselby]

How about a standard price per km, with some routes have a straight discount (to encourage use) applied in a transparent way? And additional discount fares available for specific trains of low use. And then apart from that, no travelcards, no discount for return fares, no break of journey allowed (because it would serve no purpose with flat fares), and the whole system (or at least that part that is practical) controlled on a touch-in touch-out basis? Also, all reservations to attract a small charge (to discourage speculative reservations) but to be available from an app and in realtime. Without a reservation, no 'entitlement' to get on a particular train.

That sounds like a guaranteed way to destroy the railways in the eyes of the travelling public.

Flat rates per km don't work when you have a network that includes both local and long journeys.
London to Manchester is about 200 miles, so let's say a single fare of £100 (slightly less than the current off-peak single). That gives you a "per mile" rate of 50p.
On that basis, Coryton to Whitchurch, at a distance of about 600m, would have a single fare of 20p.
If you set the fares at a level that gives sensible prices for long distance then local fares will cost more to collect than they will raise. If you set fares at a level that gives sensible prices for local journeys then long distance travel becomes unaffordable.

If you remove any kind of demand management (eg off-peak or advance purchase) then you end up with worse overcrowding at some times and emptier trains at others and overall a poorer usage of capacity and a less pleasant travelling environment. And no, people can't just "choose to avoid busy trains" as I've seen some people suggest, because absent any kind of price differential it may not be obvious to passengers which trains are going to be busy.

If the payments are only managed by touch-in touch-out, how do you deal with the situation where there may be more than one route between two stations – are people automatically assumed to have taken the shortest route (even if it's very unlikely)? You would end up with all sorts of anomalies where it would be cheaper to travel further. (For example: Leeds to Goole is 32 miles on the direct once/twice-a-day train, so mostly you would go via Doncaster, which is about 47 miles. Which fare would you be charged? If you're only charged the cheapest, what about Leeds to Thorne North? That would be further than the direct Leeds to Goole route, so should be charged more, but is en route to Goole for 90% of journeys.

"No break of journey allowed" seems like a very unfriendly way of saying "you can break your journey anywhere you like because it makes no difference to the fare" ... what do you even mean by "not allowed" in that context?

If fares are "all" controlled by touch-in touch-out, what happens when they aren't? Are you going to equip every station on the network with scanners (and barriers), and what happens if they are not working at an unmanned station?

Does it matter if they did? Only the odd enthusiast would ever do it, normal passengers wouldn't. I know the railway sometimes institutionally dislikes enthusiasts (despite having fares basically only ever bought by them like the All Line Rover) but it's such a small number of people that it's just inconsequential.

The main issue with this is because the mainline railway is a porous system (unlike say London Underground) people would "break their journey" at a distant station and pay less than they should pay. But for contactless you can't tap off somewhere you didn't get off the train so it's fine.

I remember 20 years ago when there was an anomaly in the Routeing Guide that meant a ticket from London Terminals to Finsbury Park was valid from Liverpool Street via Cambridge. Sure, that loophole has been ironed out, and was not widely known at the time outside train geek circles – but these days, with far more mainstream websites openly advertising split ticketing and other workarounds, you can expect any oddities like that to become much more quickly and widely exploited. And, as in the example above, there will be absurd situations where distance-based fares give really counter-intuitive results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If fares are "all" controlled by touch-in touch-out, what happens when they aren't? Are you going to equip every station on the network with scanners (and barriers), and what happens if they are not working at an unmanned station?

The obvious answer to this, which is how it is in France with compostage, is that if you were unable to touch in you must proactively make yourself known to the guard on boarding so they can do it. If they later find you without you having made any effort to do so, you are penalised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2025 ==

If you remove any kind of demand management (eg off-peak or advance purchase) then you end up with worse overcrowding at some times and emptier trains at others and overall a poorer usage of capacity and a less pleasant travelling environment. And no, people can't just "choose to avoid busy trains" as I've seen some people suggest, because absent any kind of price differential it may not be obvious to passengers which trains are going to be busy.

Contactless can do off-peak.

If you were to ask me for a prediction of where fares will be in 20 years' time, it would be that for long distance fares it is basically Advances only along the LNER "trial" model, possibly with Anytimes inflated significantly (think £400* rather than £200 London-Edinburgh which would be in line by distance with London-Manchester now) so they are just a cap and not something anyone ever buys. While local journeys will be contactless payment with just a peak/off peak differential with a standardised set of peak/off peak times based on what Oval does, with the option to have a paper or e-ticket for those journeys at a small uplift. That assumes paper tickets exist at all - it would not entirely surprise me if within 20-30 years the ability to purchase a ticket at a station had been abolished entirely, and that penalty fares would apply on the whole network, including places like Altnabreac if it's still open - there will by then be 100% mobile phone coverage anyway, with gaps filled by satellite.

Is it ideal? No, but it *is* fairly simple.

* Probably about £2K by then with inflation, but I mean in 2025 real terms.

 

[Trainbike46]

Notably Merseytravel used to have an off peak season ticket but binned it off a while back. Realistically contactless caps are probably a better way of doing this sort of thing.

Provided the system includes both daily and weekly caps, with both an anytime and off-peak only version, I agree that it is likely a better way. One of the main things that is missing in the Dutch system in my view is capping.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2025 ==

That sounds like a guaranteed way to destroy the railways in the eyes of the travelling public.

Flat rates per km don't work when you have a network that includes both local and long journeys.
London to Manchester is about 200 miles, so let's say a single fare of £100 (slightly less than the current off-peak single). That gives you a "per mile" rate of 50p.
On that basis, Coryton to Whitchurch, at a distance of about 600m, would have a single fare of 20p.
If you set the fares at a level that gives sensible prices for long distance then local fares will cost more to collect than they will raise. If you set fares at a level that gives sensible prices for local journeys then long distance travel becomes unaffordable.

This is a solved problem; (mostly) distance based pricing in Europe tend to:
- charge for a set minimum distance, e.g. 3 km
- reduce the per kilometre rate if the distance exceeds a certain number for all kilometres beyond that point.

Another solution is to have contactless zonal pricing around urban centres with one fare system, and long distance fares for the rest of the network.

If fares are "all" controlled by touch-in touch-out, what happens when they aren't? Are you going to equip every station on the network with scanners (and barriers), and what happens if they are not working at an unmanned station?

Touch in touch out readers are pretty cheap, and can realistically be installed at all stations.

If they're out of order on departure you find the guard as soon as possible. If they're out of order on arrival you use the online process for a missing touch-in or touch-out.

I remember 20 years ago when there was an anomaly in the Routeing Guide that meant a ticket from London Terminals to Finsbury Park was valid from Liverpool Street via Cambridge. Sure, that loophole has been ironed out, and was not widely known at the time outside train geek circles – but these days, with far more mainstream websites openly advertising split ticketing and other workarounds, you can expect any oddities like that to become much more quickly and widely exploited. And, as in the example above, there will be absurd situations where distance-based fares give really counter-intuitive results.

Of course, if an anomaly gets widely published the railway will also be aware of it, and can address the anomaly if needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Provided the system includes both daily and weekly caps, with both an anytime and off-peak only version, I agree that it is likely a better way. One of the main things that is missing in the Dutch system in my view is capping.

Outside of a few urban operators the Netherlands has never done day tickets in the same way most other countries do - it was always a case of paying per journey with the Strippenkaart - so it sort of makes sense that the replacement didn't either. But I'd agree it is a weakness of that system.

 

[quantinghome]

I'd expect such a Railcard to come at a much higher price than the demographic ones. I would be willing to pay around £20 per month by direct debit for one.

That's roughly what a Bahncard 50 costs (which, as the name suggest gives a 50% discount). However, if we were to stick with the standard 33% discount I reckon you'd be looking at about twice the cost of the existing railcards, so around £70. Given most people use the train fairly infrequently, the sweet spot to maximise revenue is probably a fair bit lower than we on this forum would be happy to pay.

 

[A S Leib]

Given most people use the train fairly infrequently,

The average is 18-19 journeys per year (Figure 10), and presumably considerably lower if excluding those commuting by train.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Flat rates per km don't work when you have a network that includes both local and long journeys.
London to Manchester is about 200 miles, so let's say a single fare of £100 (slightly less than the current off-peak single). That gives you a "per mile" rate of 50p.
On that basis, Coryton to Whitchurch, at a distance of about 600m, would have a single fare of 20p.
If you set the fares at a level that gives sensible prices for long distance then local fares will cost more to collect than they will raise. If you set fares at a level that gives sensible prices for local journeys then long distance travel becomes unaffordable.

I think that you're correct that a simple flat fare per km would be problematic, but there are easy modifications to make the idea more workable. For a start, you could make it a fare per km plus a fixed base fare of - say - 50p. That would instantly make Coryton to Whitchurch a more realistic 70p in your example. Secondly, instead of making the km rate a (rate per km) * (no. of km), you could say something like
Fare = (rate per km) * (no. of km)^(3/4)
Where ^ means, to the power of. I've used (3/4) as an example, but I think that would be about the right ballpark for something that seems reasonable. It would mean that if say the fare for 1km is £1 (ignoring any fixed base fare), then the fare for 2km would be £1.68, for 10km would be £5.62, the fare for 100km would be £31.60, and the fare for London-Manchester (assuming about 320km) would be £75.65. [*]

Also, you point out that a flat fare per km would, if long distance prices were sensible, massively reduce fares for short distances. While I agree with you that 20p is silly as a fare, there is an argument that fares for short distances are way too expensive and ought to come down. The vast majority of short distance travel is likely to be within large cities, where you REALLY want to encourage people to stop using cars and using public transport instead. If you're driving a mile or two, the fuel cost that people see for driving is likely to measured in pennies. If the train charges several £ for the same distance, that's just not remotely competitive.

[*] Those are on the high side for off-peak single fares but could be reasonable as off-peak return fares or as peak single fares. Perhaps divide by 2 for off-peak single fares.

 

[The exile]

I'd be surprised if the existing railcard schemes net increase revenue given how fares have risen.
I'd argue we should kill the railcard system entirely and use the revenue raise to pay for other fare simplification that won't be revenue neutral or positive.

The young people / family ones encourage people to get into the “train habit” so the benefit is long term (but unquantifiable). The senior ones help encourage people to ditch their car as they approach the point when they should no longer be driving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where ^ means, to the power of. I've used (3/4) as an example, but I think that would be about the right ballpark for something that seems reasonable. It would mean that if say the fare for 1km is £1 (ignoring any fixed base fare), then the fare for 2km would be £1.68, for 10km would be £5.62, the fare for 100km would be £31.60, and the fare for London-Manchester (assuming about 320km) would be £75.65. [*]

I don't think an entirely unfair answer to the "LNER trial question" and simplification might be slightly higher Off Peak fares to that sort of level but with a very simple restriction - a blanket "no boarding any train between 0430 and 0929 inclusive" as XC use with their relatively high Off Peak fares - and using Advances and 70 Minute Flex type tickets to sit a bit lower than that. But the cap isn't then as ridiculously high as Avanti's Anytimes. And if you take into account that most people know their outward train even if they don't know their return one, they could pay about the same by using an Advance out and one of these new Off Peaks back.

(Suggested names: Anytime Flex, 9:30 Flex? I know Hamburg had a 9-Uhr-Tageskarte - a 9-o'clock day ticket - for their off peak day ticket)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think an entirely unfair answer to the "LNER trial question" and simplification might be slightly higher Off Peak fares to that sort of level but with a very simple restriction - a blanket "no boarding any train between 0430 and 0929 inclusive" as XC use with their relatively high Off Peak fares - and using Advances and 70 Minute Flex type tickets to sit a bit lower than that.

One problem with blanket 'no boarding before 09:30' type restrictions for off-peak tickets is the anomaly where someone travelling 200 miles who boards a train at 09:15 has to pay a full peak fare, but someone boarding the same train at the next stop, at 09:35 and going to the same place, has to pay maybe half the fare or less for what is almost the same journey on the same train. It also means the first person has a huge incentive to do split ticketing at the 09:35 stop. I'm not sure what you can do about that though.

 

[HSTEd]

That sounds like a guaranteed way to destroy the railways in the eyes of the travelling public.

Flat rates per km don't work when you have a network that includes both local and long journeys.
London to Manchester is about 200 miles, so let's say a single fare of £100 (slightly less than the current off-peak single). That gives you a "per mile" rate of 50p.
On that basis, Coryton to Whitchurch, at a distance of about 600m, would have a single fare of 20p.
If you set the fares at a level that gives sensible prices for long distance then local fares will cost more to collect than they will raise. If you set fares at a level that gives sensible prices for local journeys then long distance travel becomes unaffordable.

How many rail journeys are that short though?
The average rail journey is several miles long.

The marginal cost of collecting a fare in a TVM or online only system using till roll or electronic tickets is very small, however.

It will be on the order of single digit pence per ticket.
In any case, you could always have a fare of £1 plus the distance value.

If you remove any kind of demand management (eg off-peak or advance purchase) then you end up with worse overcrowding at some times and emptier trains at others and overall a poorer usage of capacity and a less pleasant travelling environment. And no, people can't just "choose to avoid busy trains" as I've seen some people suggest, because absent any kind of price differential it may not be obvious to passengers which trains are going to be busy.

The simple answer is the online portal or TVM will give an indication of the crowdedness of trains at the time of purchase.
This could be supplemented using available datafeeds giving real time data, which are installed on most modern trains.

If the payments are only managed by touch-in touch-out, how do you deal with the situation where there may be more than one route between two stations – are people automatically assumed to have taken the shortest route (even if it's very unlikely)? You would end up with all sorts of anomalies where it would be cheaper to travel further. (For example: Leeds to Goole is 32 miles on the direct once/twice-a-day train, so mostly you would go via Doncaster, which is about 47 miles. Which fare would you be charged? If you're only charged the cheapest, what about Leeds to Thorne North? That would be further than the direct Leeds to Goole route, so should be charged more, but is en route to Goole for 90% of journeys.

The current system is shot through with stupid anomalies as it is though, so we shouldn't be aiming for no anomalies.
However, we can provide machines on platforms that print a QR code that demonstrates that the person was present at the machine at a certain time.

That would allow people to show what route they had taken if they change trains at a certain location.

But I think the simplest answer is to simply charge for the shortest route.
The current system has been utterly destroyed by split ticketing websites, so the revenue lost from distance fares is already lost.

"No break of journey allowed" seems like a very unfriendly way of saying "you can break your journey anywhere you like because it makes no difference to the fare" ... what do you even mean by "not allowed" in that context?

Anyone who leaves the station at an intermediate station could be considered to have ended their journey.
If they reenter the station without buying a new ticket they would be considered to have travelled without a ticket.

Most very high footfall stations have ticket barriers after all.

If fares are "all" controlled by touch-in touch-out, what happens when they aren't? Are you going to equip every station on the network with scanners (and barriers), and what happens if they are not working at an unmanned station?

If they don't touch out they get hit with a penalty fare.
Scanners have no moving parts, they will be rather reliable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who leaves the station at an intermediate station could be considered to have ended their journey.
If they reenter the station without buying a new ticket they would be considered to have travelled without a ticket.

What a stupid policy. You're telling me I can't go for a smoke or for a sandwich between trains? And if I come up on the A side of New St you'd send me back down rather than over to the other gateline?

Break of journey restrictions belong in the bin. When you are legitimately changing trains at a station you should be permitted to leave it if you want. You can at airports (and I've done it). Reduce the number of anomalies that necessitate such restrictions and there is no need for them.

 

[quantinghome]

The average is 18-19 journeys per year (Figure 10), and presumably considerably lower if excluding those commuting by train.

Yes, this Yougov survey suggests 14% of people travel by train at least weekly, 14% at least once a month, (inferred) 24% between one and six months, 27% less than once in six months and 21% never. I reckon you'd be looking at around half the overall average number of journeys once "at least weekly" and "never" categories are excluded.

 

[HSTEd]

What a stupid policy. You're telling me I can't go for a smoke or for a sandwich between trains? And if I come up on the A side of New St you'd send me back down rather than over to the other gateline?

Break of journey restrictions belong in the bin. When you are legitimately changing trains at a station you should be permitted to leave it if you want. You can at airports (and I've done it). Reduce the number of anomalies that necessitate such restrictions and there is no need for them.

I have some sympathy with this position.
I think you'd have to do a proper study of distance fares as a concept, given current routing arrangements, and determine how many (if any) actually problematic break of journey loopholes appear.

I can't think of many journeys where a permitted routing is vastly longer than the shortest possible routing, so I can't imagine any loophole will be that lucrative.

It'd be easier if we had MiFARE style ticket cards instead of till roll, although it'd make it more expensive, because then we could put validators on the trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't think of many journeys where a permitted routing is vastly longer than the shortest possible routing, so I can't imagine any loophole will be that lucrative.

Northern like PFing/prosecuting people who get on at the wrong station with Advances to save about 50p.

But away from this sort of penny pinching, the only significant one I know about is the WCML restrictions split. South of and including Preston (including Blackpool, Liverpool and Manchester) Off Peak restrictions are significantly tighter than north of it including Lancaster. As such, break of journey restrictions exist on the outward part of tickets between Euston/MKC and Lancaster and points north, but not points south, so this can be enforced. If restrictions were somehow standardised as noted above, this sort of issue wouldn't exist, and it doesn't exist on the ECML where there isn't a split like that, with all ECML walk up fares I know of permitting break of journey. Aside from this case it's rare to hear of Break of Journey being enforced on walk up fares.

I do tend to come down on the side that it would make sense to follow XC in standardising Off Peaks to just "boarding a train 0930 or later", but you'd have to increase some of them to recognise that nobody would ever then buy Anytime Returns and balance it with Advances. It does create its own anomalies (in some cases a split becomes worthwhile) but the anomalies caused by a simple rule like that are much smaller than those with more complex rules, and it IS simple.

 

[yorksrob]

What a stupid policy. You're telling me I can't go for a smoke or for a sandwich between trains? And if I come up on the A side of New St you'd send me back down rather than over to the other gateline?

Break of journey restrictions belong in the bin. When you are legitimately changing trains at a station you should be permitted to leave it if you want. You can at airports (and I've done it). Reduce the number of anomalies that necessitate such restrictions and there is no need for them.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

What's also needed is a bonfire of stupid routing restrictions designed to channel money between TOC's and allow any route in roughly the right direction.