Railcard boundaries in silly places

[yorksrob]

The Network Railcard is a marketing tool and these have always been key parts of the offer. It there to generate a net increase in revenue not to be kind to a specified group of people.

Thenyou must surely be in favour of a National railcard as that is what it would do !

I really don't agree with the point about the £13 minimum fare. If I've gone to the trouble and expense of buying a railcard, I'll want to make back the sunk costs using all fares, not just more expensive ones.

And as for the 10:00 limit, I'm not convinced it's much of a justification. If people want to cram on the first off-peak train they can, otherwise they can get on the next one in more comfort.

 

[JonathanH]

If people want to cram on the first off-peak train they can, otherwise they can get on the next one in more comfort.

If trains are so full that they are crammed then why do the fares need to be reduced? It is a huge paradox.

Marketing is about selling the spare capacity, not scarce capacity.

 

[yorksrob]

If trains are so full that they are crammed then why do the fares need to be reduced? It is a huge paradox.

Marketing is about selling the spare capacity, not scarce capacity.

It's not about marketing, it's about ensuring that the railway system is available to a broad spectrum of the population, not just the rich. The railway does attract a lot of public funding, therefore its appropriate to run it on a public service, rather than an overly commercial basis.

Public service = affordable fares

 

[Magdalia]

Thenyou must surely be in favour of a National railcard as that is what it would do !

A National Railcard would not be positive for net revenue, because the economics of supply and demand that made the Network Railcard work in the London area do not apply in the rest of the country. I'm not in favour of a National Railcard because I think it would result in a loss of net revenue for the railway, jeopardising its future, and that it would result in an increased financial burden for taxpayers.

The Network SouthEast railcard was a product of place and time.

On the supply side, London had a far more accentuated commuting peak than anywhere else in the UK. There were lots of resources, especially trains and traincrew, that were spare capacity off peak, either running round almost empty, or sitting idle in carriage sidings and mess rooms.

On the demand side, there was an existing market for day trips to London that wasn't using the railway. For example, when I was growing up in Cambridge, day trips to London were usually done by driving to Cockfosters or Stanmore then getting the Tube, not by going on the train. The Network Railcard captured that market.

The Network Railcard also grew that market, partly because it coincided with the relaxation of Sunday trading and pub opening rules. Day trips to London on a Sunday weren't a thing until the late 1980s because there was nowhere to go and nothing to do.

And it is a very big market, look at the ORR flows data. Of the top 10 flows with one station outside London, two are airports, two are Birmingham and Manchester, but the remainder are Network SouthEast stations to/from London: Reading, Milton Keynes, Watford, Woking, Cambridge and Chelmsford. Lots of that will be commuter travel, needing lots of peak time capacity, but lots of it will be travel using the Network railcard that would otherwise probably not be on the railway at all, travelling off peak on what would otherwise be nearly empty trains.

This discussion originated with the Network SouthEast boundary, and it neatly shows how the relative impact of these change with increased distance from London. Places like Ipswich, Peterborough, Rugby and Swindon don't have the same off peak spare capacity, or the same London day trip market. Bringing places like these into the railcard area would reduce revenue, not increase it.

A National Railcard would not work in the same way as the Netwrork Card because there isn't the same existing peak time capacity to move large numbers of new people off peak, and because there isn't a big equivalent of the "car plus Tube" market to capture.

Finally, I suspect that if the Network Railcard didn't exist, it wouldn't get invented now. By comparison with 21st century yield maximisation algorithms, the railcard as a marketing tool is a blunt instrument. Some TOCs already recognise this: for example Greater Anglia have offered advance tickets at very quiet times that are below the £13 railcard floor. The railway could get more revenue if it could use yield maximisation to vary prices according to demand. An example here is sports events, where a Network Railcard is a bargain for many supporters of teams in the railcard area, giving bigger discounts than would be the case with yield maximisation algorithms.

The railway does attract a lot of public funding, therefore its appropriate to run it on a public service, rather than an overly commercial basis.

The railway does not live in a vacuum and needs to reduce its public funding, not increase it. There are lots of other big demands for funds from other public services that are higher than the railways on the list of priorities for funding. Like any other public service, it needs to minimise its burden on the taxpayer by driving revenue up and costs down.

It's not about marketing

It isn't just about marketing, but marketing does have a significant part to play, because it helps to drive up revenue, and reduce the financial burden of the railway on taxpayers.

 

[yorksrob]

A National Railcard would not be positive for net revenue, because the economics of supply and demand that made the Network Railcard work in the London area do not apply in the rest of the country. I'm not in favour of a National Railcard because I think it would result in a loss of net revenue for the railway, jeopardising its future, and that it would result in an increased financial burden for taxpayers.

The Network SouthEast railcard was a product of place and time.

On the supply side, London had a far more accentuated commuting peak than anywhere else in the UK. There were lots of resources, especially trains and traincrew, that were spare capacity off peak, either running round almost empty, or sitting idle in carriage sidings and mess rooms.

On the demand side, there was an existing market for day trips to London that wasn't using the railway. For example, when I was growing up in Cambridge, day trips to London were usually done by driving to Cockfosters or Stanmore then getting the Tube, not by going on the train. The Network Railcard captured that market.

The Network Railcard also grew that market, partly because it coincided with the relaxation of Sunday trading and pub opening rules. Day trips to London on a Sunday weren't a thing until the late 1980s because there was nowhere to go and nothing to do.

And it is a very big market, look at the ORR flows data. Of the top 10 flows with one station outside London, two are airports, two are Birmingham and Manchester, but the remainder are Network SouthEast stations to/from London: Reading, Milton Keynes, Watford, Woking, Cambridge and Chelmsford. Lots of that will be commuter travel, needing lots of peak time capacity, but lots of it will be travel using the Network railcard that would otherwise probably not be on the railway at all, travelling off peak on what would otherwise be nearly empty trains.

This discussion originated with the Network SouthEast boundary, and it neatly shows how the relative impact of these change with increased distance from London. Places like Ipswich, Peterborough, Rugby and Swindon don't have the same off peak spare capacity, or the same London day trip market. Bringing places like these into the railcard area would reduce revenue, not increase it.

A National Railcard would not work in the same way as the Netwrork Card because there isn't the same existing peak time capacity to move large numbers of new people off peak, and because there isn't a big equivalent of the "car plus Tube" market to capture.

Finally, I suspect that if the Network Railcard didn't exist, it wouldn't get invented now. By comparison with 21st century yield maximisation algorithms, the railcard as a marketing tool is a blunt instrument. Some TOCs already recognise this: for example Greater Anglia have offered advance tickets at very quiet times that are below the £13 railcard floor. The railway could get more revenue if it could use yield maximisation to vary prices according to demand. An example here is sports events, where a Network Railcard is a bargain for many supporters of teams in the railcard area, giving bigger discounts than would be the case with yield maximisation algorithms.

There are several issues here:

- Previous studies have indicated that a national railcard would increase net revenue, through a combination of the railcard price and the increased farebox revenue. I can't remember whether it was Transport 2000 or Transport Focus, but it was a few years ago.

- The Network Railcard opened up new markets because it made the railway product more attractive to passengers. If all those things such as relaxed sunday trading laws were so important, there would have been no commercial requirement to introduce the network railcard at all as passenger usage would have increased anyway.

- Just because a railcard available in the NSE area may be more lucrative for the railway than elsewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to exclude residents from outside the NSE area from affordable travel. In fact, it is regressive and against the levelling up agenda.

- Modern yield management algorithms are just a way to fleece passengers out of more money. Just because it is possible to do this, doesn't make it the right way to run a public service, provided at public expense.

The railway does not live in a vacuum and needs to reduce its public funding, not increase it. There are lots of other big demands for funds from other public services that are higher than the railways on the list of priorities for funding. Like any other public service, it needs to minimise its burden on the taxpayer by driving revenue up and costs down.


It isn't just about marketing, but marketing does have a significant part to play, because it helps to drive up revenue, and reduce the financial burden of the railway on taxpayers.

This is just regurgitating the shibboleths of our political establishment in London.

As I have said in other posts, there are plenty of other developed western countries that organise their railway systems as a way of providing affordable transport to their populations.

Just because the same old people in Whitehall like to try and brow-beat us into thinking that the only way to run the railway is as an overly commercialised "rich man's toy", doesn't make it so.

 

[MatthewHutton]

There are several issues here:

- Previous studies have indicated that a national railcard would increase net revenue, through a combination of the railcard price and the increased farebox revenue. I can't remember whether it was Transport 2000 or Transport Focus, but it was a few years ago.

- The Network Railcard opened up new markets because it made the railway product more attractive to passengers. If all those things such as relaxed sunday trading laws were so important, there would have been no commercial requirement to introduce the network railcard at all as passenger usage would have increased anyway.

- Just because a railcard available in the NSE area may be more lucrative for the railway than elsewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to exclude residents from outside the NSE area from affordable travel. In fact, it is regressive and against the levelling up agenda.

- Modern yield management algorithms are just a way to fleece passengers out of more money. Just because it is possible to do this, doesn't make it the right way to run a public service, provided at public expense.



This is just regurgitating the shibboleths of our political establishment in London.

As I have said in other posts, there are plenty of other developed western countries that organise their railway systems as a way of providing affordable transport to their populations.

Just because the same old people in Whitehall like to try and brow-beat us into thinking that the only way to run the railway is as an overly commercialised "rich man's toy", doesn't make it so.

I’m pretty much all cases the desire of the railway is to maximise revenue. If railcards increase the number of journeys people do then almost certainly that goal is met.

If anything the network railcard costs the railway the most money as it saves users £150/year vs £100 for the others.

 

[JonathanH]

If railcards increase the number of journeys people do then almost certainly that goal is met.

Yes, but the number of journeys made need to increase by 50% to make good a 33% discount.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m pretty much all cases the desire of the railway is to maximise revenue. If railcards increase the number of journeys people do then almost certainly that goal is met.

If anything the network railcard costs the railway the most money as it saves users £150/year vs £100 for the others.

Surely that depends on how many of those journeys the passenger would make without it ?

I'm inclined to think that a National railcard would raise more revenue outside of the NSE area because of the following:

- there are already better railway services in the South East, so the pull factor for rail is already there. Elsewhere is geographically a bit less suitable for rail, so a railcard is likely to have more impact and induce more rail travel.

- There are already greater push factors onto the train in the SE in terms of congestion and congestion charging in London, so a railcard elsewhere will generate more travel.

 

[Magdalia]

I can't remember whether it was Transport 2000 or Transport Focus, but it was a few years ago.

It was a few years ago, and they would say that, wouldn't they? Any pressure group can get a consultant to write a report that gives them the answer they first thought of.

In fact, it is regressive and against the levelling up agenda.

We don't have the levelling up agenda any more. What matters now is economic growth.

This is just regurgitating the shibboleths of our political establishment in London.

They aren't the shibboleths of the political establishment, they are the harsh economic reality of a country up to its ears in debt.

there are plenty of other developed western countries that organise their railway systems as a way of providing affordable transport to their populations.

There are, but they pay higher levels of tax to pay for it, and don't have to spend such large chunks of tax revenue on debt interest. Governments in those countries have economic resources at their disposal that the UK government does not have.

That is political choice: this country voted for a government that committed not to raise taxes for working people. There is no prospect of a UK government being able to afford to do this until after growth is restored and debt has started to fall.

 

[yorksrob]

It was a few years ago, and they would say that, wouldn't they? Any pressure group can get a consultant to write a report that gives them the answer they first thought of.


We don't have the levelling up agenda any more. What matters now is economic growth.

It might not be called the levelling up agenda anymore, but no sane government would want to be seen exacerbating the North South divide. Having a discount to travel which is available to passengers in the South East but not the rest of the country is clearly exacerbating that divide.

They aren't the shibboleths of the political establishment, they are the harsh economic reality of a country up to its ears in debt.

I'm sorry, but in the context of successive governments being content to spaff billions up the wall in fuel duty freezes, the idea that there isn't money for a national railcard is plain nonsense.

There are, but they pay higher levels of tax to pay for it, and don't have to spend such large chunks of tax revenue on debt interest. Governments in those countries have economic resources at their disposal that the UK government does not have..

I refer you to my above point

That is political choice: this country voted for a government that committed not to raise taxes for working people. There is no prospect of a UK government being able to afford to do this until after growth is restored and debt has started to fall.

One way to improve growth is to facilitate economic activity by enabling people to travel and go about their business. Having non-sensical fares is a barrier to this.

Affordable train fares also put money back in peoples pockets to spend elsewhere in the economy. That is good for growth. A national railcard would be a comparatively cost effective way to do this.

 

[Magdalia]

no sane government would want to be seen exacerbating the North South divide.

Very few people will see the existence Network Railcard as the main indicator of a north south divide. Most people in the north won't even know that the Network Railcard exists.

n the context of successive governments being content to spaff billions up the wall in fuel duty freezes, the idea that there isn't money for a national railcard is plain nonsense.

Affordable train fares also put money back in peoples pockets to spend elsewhere in the economy. That is good for growth. A national railcard would be a comparatively cost effective way to do this.

The fuel duty freeze is a far more effective way of putting money into lots of peoples pockets than a National Railcard. Far more people buy fuel for a car than buy train tickets. It also disproportionately benefits the north, especially compared with London, where fewer people own cars.

A fuel duty freeze also has a much bigger downward impact on inflation, which is key for managing debt interest costs.

 

[Hadders]

Fares are generally more expensive in the south, especially where London is involved. The Network Railcard is one way of mitigating this for leisure travel.

 

[Joey Beauchamp]

Fares are generally more expensive in the south, especially where London is involved. The Network Railcard is one way of mitigating this for leisure travel.

Is this true? I've been absolutely flabbergasted by the high price of some fares in the North, usually the ones outside cities or across County boundaries. Journeys in the South that avoid London can be very cheap indeed and there are often good value off-peak travelcards and advances into London.

 

[Hadders]

Is this true? I've been absolutely flabbergasted by the high price of some fares in the North, usually the ones outside cities or across County boundaries. Journeys in the South that avoid London can be very cheap indeed and there are often good value off-peak travelcards and advances into London.

There are some good value tickets in the south but anything involving London is generally expensive, and much travel involves London.

 

[yorksrob]

Very few people will see the existence Network Railcard as the main indicator of a north south divide. Most people in the north won't even know that the Network Railcard exists.




The fuel duty freeze is a far more effective way of putting money into lots of peoples pockets than a National Railcard. Far more people buy fuel for a car than buy train tickets. It also disproportionately benefits the north, especially compared with London, where fewer people own cars.

A fuel duty freeze also has a much bigger downward impact on inflation, which is key for managing debt interest costs.

Just because rail passengers are a smaller segment of the population than motorists, doesn't mean that the same arguments for restricting cost inflation (fuel tax freeze) and reducing the north south divide don't apply.

I do find myself wondering what economic miracles motorists must be performing to justify the year on year price controls as opposed us rail travellers who must be hit with swingeing fares increases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2025 ==

Fares are generally more expensive in the south, especially where London is involved. The Network Railcard is one way of mitigating this for leisure travel.

Where the South has London, the North has Cross Country, TPE and any short/medium journey involving an InterCity franchise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2025 ==

Is this true? I've been absolutely flabbergasted by the high price of some fares in the North, usually the ones outside cities or across County boundaries. Journeys in the South that avoid London can be very cheap indeed and there are often good value off-peak travelcards and advances into London.

This is extremely true, and illustrates the nonsense idea that all Northern fares are cheap compared to the South East.

 

[Magdalia]

I do find myself wondering what economic miracles motorists must be performing to justify the year on year price controls as opposed us rail travellers who must be hit with swingeing fares increases.

The miracle is that there are lots more of them. Furthermore, most motorists buy fuel much more frequently than most rail users buying train tickets.

This means that fuel prices have a much bigger weight in the consumer price index (CPI) than train fares. Petrol is 17 parts per thousand and diesel 11 parts per thousand, but train fares are 7 parts per thousand. In CPI terms fuel prices are 4 times as important as train fares.

Just because rail passengers are a smaller segment of the population than motorists, doesn't mean that the same arguments for restricting cost inflation (fuel tax freeze) and reducing the north south divide don't apply.

In practice, yes it does, especially as lower rail fares mainly benefit the south.

Where you have London, we have Cross Country, TPE and any short/medium journey involving an InterCity franchise

We have Cross Country too, for example Cambridge-Peterborough fares are relatively expensive.

 

[yorksrob]

The miracle is that there are lots more of them. Furthermore, most motorists buy fuel much more frequently than most rail users buying train tickets.

This means that fuel prices have a much bigger weight in the consumer price index (CPI) than train fares. Petrol is 17 parts per thousand and diesel 11 parts per thousand, but train fares are 7 parts per thousand. In CPI terms fuel prices are 4 times as important as train fares.


In practice, yes it does, especially as lower rail fares mainly benefit the south.


We have Cross Country too, for example Cambridge-Peterborough fares are relatively expensive.

Rail fares may have a less of an impact on the basket of products, however the other side of the coin is that it would cost considerably less in terms of loss revenue to introduce something like a National Railcard.

As discussed in other threads, rail usage in the South is more skewed towards higher income households, therefore it makes more sense to control fares in the rest of the country where the profile of the travelling public is far more diverse.

You do indeed have Cross Country, which just goes to show that there are extortionate fares all over the country.

There is no justification for not having some sort of a railcard available to all residents.

 

[Magdalia]

There is no justification for not having some sort of a railcard available to all residents.

it would cost considerably less in terms of loss revenue to introduce something like a National Railcard.

The justification is simple, it would lead to a net loss of revenue and increased cost of the railway to taxpayers. You have finally admitted that here yourself.

 

[35B]

Those are exactly the sort of things that we don't want.

- there's not really any justification for non availability before 10:00 - railcard passengers would still be paying a peak fare premium with the railcard discount. Also, around here the off-peak begins at 9:30 anyway.

- Minimum discounted fare of £13 - an unjustifiable price gouge.

I heard Chris Green speak to the Wandsworth Society in about 1991. He was absolutely clear that his biggest commercial problem was the gap in demand between peak and off-peak, with expensive trains sitting idle earning nothing between the peaks.

He went on to say that NSE’s promotional activity was about driving off-peak demand. The Network Card was absolutely part of that.

Boosting peak demand was unnecessary and, frankly, additional leisure travel in the peak was about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.

 

[Magdalia]

I heard Chris Green speak to the Wandsworth Society in about 1991. He was absolutely clear that his biggest commercial problem was the gap in demand between peak and off-peak, with expensive trains sitting idle earning nothing between the peaks.

Absolutely, and it is a commercial problem that does not affect the rest of the railway in anywhere near the same way.

 

[yorksrob]

The justification is simple, it would lead to a net loss of revenue and increased cost of the railway to taxpayers. You have finally admitted that here yourself.

I think the additional revenue of such a railcard would go a long way towards offsetting the reduced fares.

Even @Bald Rick has noted that the population not covered by a railcard is becoming increasingly small, therefore the continued discrimination against this group is becoming increasingly incongruous.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

I heard Chris Green speak to the Wandsworth Society in about 1991. He was absolutely clear that his biggest commercial problem was the gap in demand between peak and off-peak, with expensive trains sitting idle earning nothing between the peaks.

He went on to say that NSE’s promotional activity was about driving off-peak demand. The Network Card was absolutely part of that.

Boosting peak demand was unnecessary and, frankly, additional leisure travel in the peak was about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.

But a national railcard would also likely have peak restrictions, so the point would hold true nationwide.

 

[35B]

But a national railcard would also likely have peak restrictions, so the point would hold true nationwide.

Indeed. With minimum fare one of the aspects of that restriction.

 

[Magdalia]

I think the additional revenue of such a railcard would go a long way towards offsetting the reduced fares.

But not the whole way, and therefore with cost to taxpayers.

But a national railcard would also likely have peak restrictions, so the point would hold true nationwide.

No it wouldn't, because nationwide doesn't have the disparity between peak and off peak that drove the introduction of the Network Railcard.

 

[yorksrob]

But not the whole way, and therefore with cost to taxpayers.


No it wouldn't, because nationwide doesn't have the disparity between peak and off peak that drove the introduction of the Network Railcard.

But the National Railcard would reduce any loss of revenue (if there be a loss of revenue - that's a big if) to such a point that the benefit would outweigh the cost.

Just because the Network Railcard was introduced for one purpose thirty-five years ago, doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons for having a railcard available to all - not least making an expensive system affordable for more people.

 

[Magdalia]

But the National Railcard would reduce any loss of revenue (if there be a loss of revenue - that's a big if) to such a point that the benefit would outweigh the cost.

it would cost considerably less in terms of loss revenue to introduce something like a National Railcard.

You have already conceded that there will be a loss of revenue, and therefore a cost to taxpayers.

The benefit will not outweigh the cost. If it did, then the railway would have done it already, like they did with the Network Railcard.

Just because the Network Railcard was introduced for one purpose thirty-five years ago, doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons for having a railcard available to all - not least making an expensive system affordable for more people.

The government is going to announce the results of the spending review in a few days.

Let's imagine that you are the Secretary of State for Transport, trying to get the best deal for your department from the Treasury.

Making an expensive system more affordable for more people is a very nebulous objective, and a National Railcard is unlikely to be the most effective way of achieving it. The Department for Transport is going to have other priorities, is this one near the top of the list?

 

[miklcct]

The minimum fare is there because discounts on small fares are small amounts and not big enough to change behaviour. Small discounts don't generate the extra travel that compensates for the revenue loss on existing sales. Charging £2 instead of £3 doesn't change behaviour, but charging £20 instead of £30 does change behaviour, getting people out of their cars and into the trains.

Charging £2 instead of £3 certainly changes my behaviour. If my local journey is £3 instead of £2 I will not travel by train. This year, some TfL fares increased by nearly 15% outside zone 1 and it has already resulted in me reducing the use of the Overground for short journeys.

The bus fare cap increasing from £2 to £3 has already resulted in me avoiding the use of bus outside London for certain short journeys.

In the last few months, I already reduced my rail cost by minimising peak hour travel, including waiting until 09:30 to start my morning commute, and bringing my bike onto the tube so that I can cycle my evening commute. Once my 26-30 Railcard expires this year (as I am 32 years old so I can't get another one anymore), instead of paying £212 to buy an Annual Gold Card, I will probably further halve my use of railways in the Oyster area by cycling more journeys.

And as for the 10:00 limit, I'm not convinced it's much of a justification. If people want to cram on the first off-peak train they can, otherwise they can get on the next one in more comfort.

My work officially start at 09:30 but there is a bit of flexibility so I can sometimes wait until 09:30 to start my commute, but another further half an hour is too much for a useful morning commute.

Finally, I suspect that if the Network Railcard didn't exist, it wouldn't get invented now. By comparison with 21st century yield maximisation algorithms, the railcard as a marketing tool is a blunt instrument. Some TOCs already recognise this: for example Greater Anglia have offered advance tickets at very quiet times that are below the £13 railcard floor. The railway could get more revenue if it could use yield maximisation to vary prices according to demand. An example here is sports events, where a Network Railcard is a bargain for many supporters of teams in the railcard area, giving bigger discounts than would be the case with yield maximisation algorithms.

The 21st century yield maximisation algorithms work on the basis of Advance ticket, but is it really good for the society to make the vast majority of rail travel booked train only? These algorithms cannot capture the value for capacity investment, it only drives passengers away and artificially suppresses demand.

Surely that depends on how many of those journeys the passenger would make without it ?

I'm inclined to think that a National railcard would raise more revenue outside of the NSE area because of the following:

- there are already better railway services in the South East, so the pull factor for rail is already there. Elsewhere is geographically a bit less suitable for rail, so a railcard is likely to have more impact and induce more rail travel.

- There are already greater push factors onto the train in the SE in terms of congestion and congestion charging in London, so a railcard elsewhere will generate more travel.

I cannot comment on the case if a National Railcard is offered in addition on the existing Network Railcard because I live in the Network Area, but if it replaces the Network Railcard (at a higher price, offering the same discount available all over the country), it will reduce my travel because long-distance travel is a rarity (maybe 2 or 3 trips per year) and the discount gained from those travel does not justify the cost of a national railcard. The £35 price tag is a bargain for weekend travel every week even for local journeys in exchange for 1/3 discount, but a £150 price tag is not.

One way to improve growth is to facilitate economic activity by enabling people to travel and go about their business. Having non-sensical fares is a barrier to this.

Affordable train fares also put money back in peoples pockets to spend elsewhere in the economy. That is good for growth. A national railcard would be a comparatively cost effective way to do this.

The Government made a huge mistake in regulating off-peak returns, rather than Anytime Singles (or equivalent), when the railway was privatised. Since privatisation, long distance anytime fares have increased way more than inflation, regulated off-peak fares in line of inflation, while Advance fares have even decreased in real terms. The result was that train fares are no longer guaranteed to be affordable.

 

[yorksrob]

You have already conceded that there will be a loss of revenue, and therefore a cost to taxpayers.

The benefit will not outweigh the cost. If it did, then the railway would have done it already, like they did with the Network Railcard.


The government is going to announce the results of the spending review in a few days.

Let's imagine that you are the Secretary of State for Transport, trying to get the best deal for your department from the Treasury.

Making an expensive system more affordable for more people is a very nebulous objective, and a National Railcard is unlikely to be the most effective way of achieving it. The Department for Transport is going to have other priorities, is this one near the top of the list?

I do not concede that there will be a loss of revenue (although I will run with your argument where necessary).

Various studies have suggested that a national railcard may increase revenue through the purchase of the card and increased travel, however I can't know for sure, so it is prudent to address the scenario in which that new revenue might not quite match that lost from those people who get a cheaper fare.

Your assertion that "the railway would have already done it" is complete fantasy, as:

- There is a risk element and there has been no one in the fragmented industry with the power to enforce that risk over all parties

- It would fall to central government and we all know how comfortable they are taking such risks

- The railway is in no place to judge or act on the social good that could come from a national railcard, even if the revenue effect is less positive than hoped.

There's nothing nebulous about the aim of more affordable rail fares - the benefits would be a lot more noticeable and relevant to the electorate than managerial reorganisation. As I've said elsewhere, railway reorganisation is a flagship policy of the Government, so it behoves them to make sure that this is felt by passengers. A national railcard is a good way to offer more affordability to passengers without damaging peak time revenue.

I remind you of Scotland's experiment with all off peak fares. At first it didn't quite make enough revenue, however it was recognised that the benefits outweighed the cost and now it is policy.

 

[AlterEgo]

I remind you of Scotland's experiment with all off peak fares. At first it didn't quite make enough revenue, however it was recognised that the benefits outweighed the cost and now it is policy.

No, it’s a political move designed to “put money back into people’s pockets” and has come about because the government coffers are in a stronger position. The Scottish government does not deny that the scheme initially failed in its aim to drive modal shift.

 

[JonathanH]

But a national railcard would also likely have peak restrictions, so the point would hold true nationwide.

It wouldn't be inappropriate for one of those restrictions to be Saturday mornings, where the railway has no current problem generating demand and there is often overcrowding.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it’s a political move designed to “put money back into people’s pockets” and has come about because the government coffers are in a stronger position. The Scottish government does not deny that the scheme initially failed in its aim to drive modal shift.

A change in modal shift would have been one benefit.

However "putting money back into peoples pockets" is another benefit and it has clearly been judged to outweigh the cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==

It wouldn't be inappropriate for one of those restrictions to be Saturday mornings, where the railway has no current problem generating demand and there is often overcrowding.

But the railway isn't crowded all of the time.

The German discount ticket is a lot more generous than our railcards are, and whilst they've had some overcrowding as a result, the sky clearly hadn't fallen in.