FairFare – 26p/mile with a £60 universal railcard

[MTR380A]

Hi all,

I’ve been working on a simple idea I’m calling FairFare – and I’d be interested in your views.

The current system is a mess: multiple ticket types, split-ticketing hacks, stories of people paying more for Manchester–London than for a flight to Europe and back, and passengers getting penalised for honest mistakes. It puts people off trains and makes the industry a laughing stock internationally.

The FairFare proposal boils down to two rules:

• Every journey is 39p per crow-fly mile.
• A universal railcard for £60/year, open to everyone, with no time restrictions – it can be used on any journey, any day, at any time, cutting the price to 26p per mile.

First Class would simply be double. Seat reservations stay free. Standing is fine on short hops, but trains would never exceed safe limits.

Why crow-fly miles?
Because it’s simple and transparent. You know the fare between two stations instantly. If a train is diverted or cancelled due to engineering works or weather, the fare doesn’t change. Delay repay is also easier when prices are tied to endpoints, not routes.

Would it save money?
Yes, compared to Anytime return fares. With the universal railcard:

• London–Manchester return: £83 (vs ~£360 today)
• London–Birmingham return: £52 (vs ~£200 today)
• London–Edinburgh return: £173 (vs ~£450 today)
• Glasgow–Edinburgh return: £22 (vs ~£30 today)

The only real losers are those who currently snag the very cheap Advances (£60 to Manchester, £140 to Edinburgh), but those are limited and inflexible.

Financially, it balances out. ORR’s latest stats: £11.5bn fare revenue, ~40bn train-miles. On a crow-fly basis (≈15% shorter, ~34bn miles under this assumption), the maths works:

• One-third at 39p/mile = £4.45bn
• Two-thirds at 26p/mile = £5.90bn
• Plus £0.75bn from railcards (≈12.5m cards sold at £60 each)

= £11.47bn total, essentially the same as today’s £11.5bn.

Challenges?
Peak crowding (though more trains, longer formations, and retrofitted interiors for standing could help), and opposition from those losing bargain Advances. Realistically this only works under GBR, since current revenue-sharing between TOCs wouldn’t cope.

But the benefit is fairness and clarity:

*“No more fare lottery. Just 39p per mile — or 26p with a railcard — every time, everywhere.”*

What do you think? Workable, or pie in the sky?

 

[mchunt]

This would be wildly more expensive than most Off Peak Returns, very few people actually buy the full Anytime Return fares.

It doesn't allow the for multiple valid routes between 2 destinations of differing distance, the longer route may take longer and would be charged more but you may be on a lower standard of train (local rather than an intercity).

There should be a universal railcard(s) with simple conditions - maybe an anytime railcard, off peak railcard & a weekend railcard at differing prices.

The 'Anytime' fare probably needs to be dropped to avoid people claiming trains are expensive and quoting that against 2 months in advance air fares. Other countries have supplements for busy, premium & peak trains - maybe we should have them also and lower the 'standard' fare to the off peak rate.

 

[Howardh]

I'm all for simplifying our ticketing structure and of course there would be winners and losers; I would lose out on the cheap advances to London + railcard.

Maybe if there was a % deduction if bought a day in advance, and a further deduction if bought a week in advance? Also a return commuter trip of 2 miles would be cheaper by rail than the standard bus fare!

But something needs to be done to lose those ridiculous high prices for walk-ons over long distances; I would like a cap regardless of distance.

 

[styles]

I live in Edinburgh and often find myself heading to London for work or social stuff. The prospect of paying £173 when I can currently do it for £97 ish is not very appealing I'm afraid. I would probably just fly.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi all,

I’ve been working on a simple idea I’m calling FairFare – and I’d be interested in your views.

The current system is a mess: multiple ticket types, split-ticketing hacks, stories of people paying more for Manchester–London than for a flight to Europe and back, and passengers getting penalised for honest mistakes. It puts people off trains and makes the industry a laughing stock internationally.

The FairFare proposal boils down to two rules:

• Every journey is 39p per crow-fly mile.

An end then, to taking longer, slower or less desirable routes to save money, and an enormous strain on routes like via Weedon as nobody will go via Northampton any more. A lot of the slow LNR trains are very busy at Northampton because people are saving money going that way.

How do you propose crow fly miles to work on routes which are longer by route miles but the destination is closer to the origin? For example, Plymouth to Swansea would be significantly cheaper than Plymouth to Bristol yet on a permitted route so nobody would ever buy the latter.

First Class would simply be double

Why? That's much more expensive than the usual uplift elsewhere in Europe.

. Seat reservations stay free. Standing is fine on short hops, but trains would never exceed safe limits.

How? By what mechanism would you ensure this?

If a train is diverted or cancelled due to engineering works or weather, the fare doesn’t change. Delay repay is also easier when prices are tied to endpoints, not routes.

How does it make delay repay easier?

Would it save money?
Yes, compared to Anytime return fares. With the universal railcard:

• London–Manchester return: £83 (vs ~£360 today)
• London–Birmingham return: £52 (vs ~£200 today)
• London–Edinburgh return: £173 (vs ~£450 today)
• Glasgow–Edinburgh return: £22 (vs ~£30 today)

The only real losers are those who currently snag the very cheap Advances (£60 to Manchester, £140 to Edinburgh), but those are limited and inflexible.

They aren't that limited. If you remove the ability to go to Birmingham for a tenner that's an insane loss of custom and utility. The minimum fare for that being £52 is madness.

Financially, it balances out. ORR’s latest stats: £11.5bn fare revenue, ~40bn train-miles. On a crow-fly basis (≈15% shorter, ~34bn miles under this assumption), the maths works:

• One-third at 39p/mile = £4.45bn
• Two-thirds at 26p/mile = £5.90bn
• Plus £0.75bn from railcards (≈12.5m cards sold at £60 each)

= £11.47bn total, essentially the same as today’s £11.5bn.

Challenges?
Peak crowding (though more trains, longer formations, and retrofitted interiors for standing could help)

So it will at best be revenue neutral - assuming the same passenger loads and these prices don't stop millions of people using very cheap trains - yet we are going to admit there will be more standing?

A mile isn't worth anything in a country with such varied population density and geography as the UK. It isn't a mostly flat homogeneous rectangle like the Netherlands.

 

[Gaelan]

• Glasgow–Edinburgh return: £22 (vs ~£30 today)

This is about twice the current anytime day return, following the abolition of peak fares.

 

[tbtc]

So Buxton to Matlock would become *significantly* cheaper than Manchester/ Stockport to Derby?

Penistone to Hadfield would be a bargain compared to a Sheffield - Manchester ticket?

Skipton to Colne is now dirt cheap compared to a Leeds - Burnley ticket?

Blaenau Ffestiniog to Porthmadog would be a drop in the ocean compared to a ticket from Chester?

But, with no barriers at such places, you couldn't stop this kind of 'short faring'?

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course BR did away with price per mile charging in, I think, the mid/late-1960s in favour of market based pricing because it recognised that you need the flexibility that it offers to deal with a complex network and demography/geography. I'm not sure that the reasons for doing away with it 60 odd years ago have changed particularly.

The analysis also seems very simplistic there will be huge swings in who travels by train and who doesn't what fares are bought or not bought due to the massive distortions that will result from this new method meaning that I don't think you can easily say one way or another that it will be revenue neutral.

 

[styles]

On the plus side, a ticket from Windsor and Eton Riverside to Windsor and Eton Central would cost 6p. That's quite a cheap way to get from Reading to Windsor

 

[ainsworth74]

Sorry @MTR380A I'm sure we didn't all mean to pile on at the same time to pooh pooh your idea

Please don't take it personally!

 

[The exile]

Sorry @MTR380A I'm sure we didn't all mean to pile on at the same time to pooh pooh your idea

Please don't take it personally!

Though it is quite an indication of the difficulties involved with any kind of fares reform!

 

[Farigiraf]

On first glance this seems like a great replacement for walk-up tickets (advances should be retained to be competitive with domestic flights and coaches) but then you realise that, for example, you could do Whitby to Scarborough for £5 with universal railcard. One of the major benefits of walk-up tickets is that they allow break of journey, and this should not be done away with. How would you stop people going from e.g. Middlesbrough to York for £5 using a Whitby-Scarborough ticket while retaining network-wide BoJ flexibility?
As noted, this also massively imbalances capacity. Cambridge to King's Cross 8-car trains would be overcrowded while 10-cars to Liverpool Street would carry mostly fresh air due to costing about the same but being slower.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I would suggest charging the shortest permitted route would be better. Mind you, I'd also change the permitted routes as well.
First Class would need to be cheaper, perhaps with paying extra for food and drinks rather than freebies.
I'd also retain Advance tickets.

 

[Howardh]

I do agree with a universal railcard, declaring an interest I have the senior one, I'd make it £100 annually for adults, £50 for OAP's and students - but maybe get 40% off fares instead of the 33% currently; and also somehow reduce the sheer volume of railcards available, when there's a drop-down list I think the Senior RC comes about 15th!!

Perhaps instead of pay per mile, a pay-per-zone could be introduced, albeit into a complex network. So in my instance, Bolton's a zone, Manchester a zone, so the fare would be fixed for two zones, and reducing the number of zones one passes through; so London might be 25 zones away from me, so...

2 stations within Manchester - same zone, £3 single = £3/zone
Bolton - Manchester - 2 zones, £5 single = £2.50/zone
Bolton - Euston - 25 zones, £50 single = £2/zone
(Day returns 1.25x the single, monthly returns 1.5x single)

I think the Dutch network did a similar thing, but with a price cap of around £60 back in the day?

 

[Ziggiesden]

An interesting concept that needs more funding to make it feasible, in real terms, to reduce the base fare along with massive timetable changes to deal with capacity issues. Lots more expresses to minimize journey times.

It will take a little bit of planning, but it could work.

 

[Trainbike46]

I do agree with a universal railcard, declaring an interest I have the senior one, I'd make it £100 annually for adults, £50 for OAP's and students - but maybe get 40% off fares instead of the 33% currently; and also somehow reduce the sheer volume of railcards available, when there's a drop-down list I think the Senior RC comes about 15th!!

Perhaps instead of pay per mile, a pay-per-zone could be introduced, albeit into a complex network. So in my instance, Bolton's a zone, Manchester a zone, so the fare would be fixed for two zones, and reducing the number of zones one passes through; so London might be 25 zones away from me, so...

2 stations within Manchester - same zone, £3 single = £3/zone
Bolton - Manchester - 2 zones, £5 single = £2.50/zone
Bolton - Euston - 25 zones, £50 single = £2/zone
(Day returns 1.25x the single, monthly returns 1.5x single)

I think the Dutch network did a similar thing, but with a price cap of around £60 back in the day?

NS does not offer any discount for a return over 2 singles (and I think that is a good system)

The current maximum NS fare is €31.20 single without discounts

The way the system works is with Tariff Units, which are approximately, but not exactly 1 km.

There is a map available, showing the Tariff Units between stations, and a lookup table translating the Tariff Units to Fares. The route charged is always the shortest route which only uses NS trains. The minimum number of Tariff Units charged for is 8, which gives a price of €2.80, and the maximum is currently 199 (officially 200, but that is the same price as 199), which is €31.20

The biggest difference with the OP's proposal is that NS uses the shortest distance in Tariff Units (rather than real distances) via rail, whereas the OP uses real distances, but as the crow flies. The advantage of tariff units is that you can make some lines cheaper or more expensive by having fewer or more Tariff units than the real distance.

This website provides both the map and the table, scroll all the way to the bottom under downloads: https://www.ns.nl/en/customer-service/payment/consumer-rates.html

 

[MTR380A]

Thanks to everyone who’s commented — your input has been really helpful in reshaping this proposal.

Several people highlighted the flaws in using as-the-crow-flies distances. Plymouth–Swansea was one example pointed out, and others mentioned Buxton–Matlock and Selby–Goole. These show how badly crow-fly would distort fares unless barriers are installed in every station. I agree, and in this latest version I’ve switched to the shortest permitted rail mileage (while still allowing slightly longer but reasonable mapped routes, as today). Because rail routes are usually longer than crow-fly, a revenue-neutral calculation means the per-mile rate can be set lower: 33p/mile, or 22p/mile with the £60 universal railcard.

A few people also raised the famous bargain Advances — London–Birmingham for a tenner, or sub-£100 London–Edinburgh. These are real, but rely on small quotas, early booking, and strict conditions. FairFare would replace that lottery with a clear, flexible fare you can rely on. The trade-off is losing the occasional extreme bargain, but gaining a system that ordinary passengers can trust — and one that could attract new users who don’t currently travel by train, helping shift trips from cars. And while FairFare can be dearer than some Off-Peak tickets, the upside is no need to study fine print or second-guess validity — just one transparent price any time.

Using the same four routes as in my original post, plus two examples raised in comments, the revised railcard return fares would be:

Route	Distance (rail miles, one way)	Anytime Return today	FairFare (railcard return)
London–Manchester	183	£360	£81
London–Birmingham	113	£200	£50
London–Edinburgh	393	£450	£173
Glasgow–Edinburgh	47	£30	£21
Plymouth–Swansea	186	£168	£82
Buxton–Matlock	~70	£83	£31

So yes, some flows go up and others go down — but that’s inevitable if the reform is to remain revenue neutral. The aim is to replace today’s confusing patchwork with something simple, fair, and predictable.

 

[Ziggiesden]

Oh, unit pricing by the yard so that you pay for the distance travelled, that way you can jump about to various locations and pay a fair price.

This would remove the issues created by Combinations of Tickets that many passengers fall foul of as they do not understand the loss of protection or the requirements to conform to the relevant condition.

 

[MTR380A]

I live in Edinburgh and often find myself heading to London for work or social stuff. The prospect of paying £173 when I can currently do it for £97 ish is not very appealing I'm afraid. I would probably just fly.

I understand that air tickets can be lower than £173, but that’s airport to airport — once you add the cost and time of getting from Heathrow or Stansted into central London, or from Edinburgh Airport into the city, the gap isn’t as wide as it first looks.

On top of that, flights are under-taxed. A London–Edinburgh return emits about 250–300 kg CO₂ per passenger, yet Air Passenger Duty is only £15. The real climate cost is nearer £30–45 (more with contrails), while the train emits just a few kilos, under £5 to offset. If ticket prices reflected those externalities, domestic flights would already be more expensive — and the revenue could be used to support rail, making the greener choice also the cheaper one.

 

[Howardh]

NS does not offer any discount for a return over 2 singles (and I think that is a good system)

The current maximum NS fare is €31.20 single without discounts

The way the system works is with Tariff Units, which are approximately, but not exactly 1 km.

There is a map available, showing the Tariff Units between stations, and a lookup table translating the Tariff Units to Fares. The route charged is always the shortest route which only uses NS trains. The minimum number of Tariff Units charged for is 8, which gives a price of €2.80, and the maximum is currently 199 (officially 200, but that is the same price as 199), which is €31.20

The biggest difference with the OP's proposal is that NS uses the shortest distance in Tariff Units (rather than real distances) via rail, whereas the OP uses real distances, but as the crow flies. The advantage of tariff units is that you can make some lines cheaper or more expensive by having fewer or more Tariff units than the real distance.

This website provides both the map and the table, scroll all the way to the bottom under downloads: https://www.ns.nl/en/customer-service/payment/consumer-rates.html

Thanks, when I quoted £60 (appx) max; I got my currency all wrong, when I last needed the maximum fare in NL it was around 60-65 GUILDERS* (!!)

*Yes, that long ago!! I need to keep up...

 

[Trainbike46]

Thanks to everyone who’s commented — your input has been really helpful in reshaping this proposal.

Several people highlighted the flaws in using as-the-crow-flies distances. Plymouth–Swansea was one example pointed out, and others mentioned Buxton–Matlock and Selby–Goole. These show how badly crow-fly would distort fares unless barriers are installed in every station. I agree, and in this latest version I’ve switched to the shortest permitted rail mileage (while still allowing slightly longer but reasonable mapped routes, as today). Because rail routes are usually longer than crow-fly, a revenue-neutral calculation means the per-mile rate can be set lower: 33p/mile, or 22p/mile with the £60 universal railcard.

A few people also raised the famous bargain Advances — London–Birmingham for a tenner, or sub-£100 London–Edinburgh. These are real, but rely on small quotas, early booking, and strict conditions. FairFare would replace that lottery with a clear, flexible fare you can rely on. The trade-off is losing the occasional extreme bargain, but gaining a system that ordinary passengers can trust — and one that could attract new users who don’t currently travel by train, helping shift trips from cars. And while FairFare can be dearer than some Off-Peak tickets, the upside is no need to study fine print or second-guess validity — just one transparent price any time.

Using the same four routes as in my original post, plus two examples raised in comments, the revised railcard return fares would be:

Route	Distance (rail miles, one way)	Anytime Return today	FairFare (railcard return)
London–Manchester	183	£360	£81
London–Birmingham	113	£200	£50
London–Edinburgh	393	£450	£173
Glasgow–Edinburgh	47	£30	£21
Plymouth–Swansea	186	£168	£82
Buxton–Matlock	~70	£83	£31

So yes, some flows go up and others go down — but that’s inevitable if the reform is to remain revenue neutral. The aim is to replace today’s confusing patchwork with something simple, fair, and predictable.

The main problem I think this represents is that it makes rail very expensive for long distances, and very cheap for short distances. The only way to deal with that is to provide a discount for travelling long distances.

£173 returns will push many people onto alternative modes for journeys like Edinburgh-London, it is too expensive. The anytime return rate you compare with is simply not a fare anyone ever actually pays, so is really irrelevant. For this long distance journeys the real comparison is the relevant (super-)off-peak fare. Similarly, it really isn't worth it to have fares of less than a quid for short distance journeys.

 

[SynthD]

Can the new prices be compared to accessible, achievable advances, whatever that means?

Some pairs of stations are linked by rarely used rail. Does a Parliamentary service define the shortest rail distance, or is there a minimum frequency?

 

[Trainbike46]

I understand that air tickets can be lower than £173, but that’s airport to airport — once you add the cost and time of getting from Heathrow or Stansted into central London, or from Edinburgh Airport into the city, the gap isn’t as wide as it first looks.

On top of that, flights are under-taxed. A London–Edinburgh return emits about 250–300 kg CO₂ per passenger, yet Air Passenger Duty is only £15. The real climate cost is nearer £30–45 (more with contrails), while the train emits just a few kilos, under £5 to offset. If ticket prices reflected those externalities, domestic flights would already be more expensive — and the revenue could be used to support rail, making the greener choice also the cheaper one.

I agree flights should be taxed more.

However, the railway doesn't get to decide that. Increasing rail fares will achieve the opposite of your stated aim, by pushing more passengers onto flights, especially for London-Scotland and London-Southwest journeys, your proposals presents a very significant price increase.

 

[styles]

I understand that air tickets can be lower than £173, but that’s airport to airport — once you add the cost and time of getting from Heathrow or Stansted into central London, or from Edinburgh Airport into the city, the gap isn’t as wide as it first looks.

On top of that, flights are under-taxed. A London–Edinburgh return emits about 250–300 kg CO₂ per passenger, yet Air Passenger Duty is only £15. The real climate cost is nearer £30–45 (more with contrails), while the train emits just a few kilos, under £5 to offset. If ticket prices reflected those externalities, domestic flights would already be more expensive — and the revenue could be used to support rail, making the greener choice also the cheaper one.

I'm aware of this as I've priced it up before going city centre to city centre. It doesn't seem worth it when you can get train tickets for £45 without a Railcard. But £173 return and honestly it would be tipping over into the worthwhile territory for many travellers.

Ryanair will do me return to Stansted at £31 with a fortnight's notice. Even if I pay walk-up fares for Stansted Express we are still around half the price of the £173 rail fare. If no hold luggage, which I rarely have for trips to London, it'll be about the same duration end to end as the train.

I do currently often pay a premium to take the train over driving or flying in part because of the environmental impact. I suspect much of the population may feel differently though when the train becomes double the end to end price of the plane. For a family of 4 making a weekend trip to London, the money saved on train fares alone would cover the hotel costs.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh, unit pricing by the yard so that you pay for the distance travelled, that way you can jump about to various locations and pay a fair price.

This would remove the issues created by Combinations of Tickets that many passengers fall foul of as they do not understand the loss of protection or the requirements to conform to the relevant condition.

Not this again. Stop spreading misinformation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==

Thanks to everyone who’s commented — your input has been really helpful in reshaping this proposal.

Several people highlighted the flaws in using as-the-crow-flies distances. Plymouth–Swansea was one example pointed out, and others mentioned Buxton–Matlock and Selby–Goole. These show how badly crow-fly would distort fares unless barriers are installed in every station. I agree, and in this latest version I’ve switched to the shortest permitted rail mileage (while still allowing slightly longer but reasonable mapped routes, as today)

So nobody would ever go via Northampton or use the Chiltern route - both routes which are priced low to attract customers who wouldn't or can't pay £52 return. Now you shove all the custom on Avanti which runs the fastest train yet costs the same as the Chiltern route and, even more bizarrely, costs less now than taking the slow train via Northampton. Why?

A few people also raised the famous bargain Advances — London–Birmingham for a tenner, or sub-£100 London–Edinburgh. These are real, but rely on small quotas, early booking, and strict conditions.

Passengers are generally happy with this though. Those people aren't going to pay several times the price for that trip. How are you going to make best use of capacity and assets with your price hikes? The majority of passengers on long distance trips don't require flexibility and there are already products available for those who do - which as has been pointed out are already often cheaper than your flat mileage fare.

FairFare would replace that lottery with a clear, flexible fare you can rely on. The trade-off is losing the occasional extreme bargain

*Frequent bargains.

, but gaining a system that ordinary passengers can trust — and one that could attract new users who don’t currently travel by train, helping shift trips from cars.

But how? What sort of trips do you hope to move from cars by charging £52 London to Birmingham? That trip would be done for £25 in my Defender and I'd have my wife with me. £104 is a laughable price.

So yes, some flows go up and others go down — but that’s inevitable if the reform is to remain revenue neutral. The aim is to replace today’s confusing patchwork with something simple, fair, and predictable.

And expensive. As well as completely ignoring the realities of how you'd kill a load of rural routes with this as well. A mile in the Highlands isn't worth the same as a mile in London. We all know that.

How do you think a railway our size and with its capacity constraints would function without advance tickets?

 

[waveyswirley]

Currently, with a railcard, you can buy a walk-up Super Off-Peak Return ticket from Liverpool Lime Street - London Euston for £30.70. This system would more than triple that!

 

[styles]

A few people also raised the famous bargain Advances — London–Birmingham for a tenner, or sub-£100 London–Edinburgh. These are real, but rely on small quotas, early booking, and strict conditions.

They're not that small. Lumo offer decent value fares on fast services from London to Edinburgh all day long. If they were suddenly made to charge £173 return, they'd go bust, and passengers would be out of pocket.

FairFare would replace that lottery with a clear, flexible fare you can rely on.

While I appreciate there's disparity between the 'per mile' fares on say the ECML vs an XC service from Aberdeen to somewhere in SW England, I'm not sure I'd call it a lottery. Even so, while fares ought to be reviewed somehow, I'm not convinced this proposal really sorts that. It sounds like something equitable, but it's not really, for the reasons people have mentioned.

The trade-off is losing the occasional extreme bargain, but gaining a system that ordinary passengers can trust — and one that could attract new users who don’t currently travel by train, helping shift trips from cars. And while FairFare can be dearer than some Off-Peak tickets, the upside is no need to study fine print or second-guess validity — just one transparent price any time.

On the contrary, I think if the proposal is to remove good value advance fares, this could actually reduce rail usage. Under this proposal, I'd be more likely to just drive to a lot of my destinations, and that's assuming solo travel. The moment we look at a case like a family of 2 adults/2 children, rail would probably just become prohibitively expensive for many families and they'd go with driving, flying, or coaches.

Using the same four routes as in my original post, plus two examples raised in comments, the revised railcard return fares would be:

Route	Distance (rail miles, one way)	Anytime Return today	FairFare (railcard return)
London–Manchester	183	£360	£81
London–Birmingham	113	£200	£50
London–Edinburgh	393	£450	£173
Glasgow–Edinburgh	47	£30	£21
Plymouth–Swansea	186	£168	£82
Buxton–Matlock	~70	£83	£31

So yes, some flows go up and others go down — but that’s inevitable if the reform is to remain revenue neutral. The aim is to replace today’s confusing patchwork with something simple, fair, and predictable.

I agree with the goal of creating something more simple, fair, and predictable. I just am afraid to say that I don't think this is it. It sounds simple, but as people have detailed in this thread, when we get into the detail of it, it often just doesn't check out. My revised price for a London-Edinburgh return for 1 adult with a Railcard is still £173, which is nearly double what I paid for a return trip Tuesday+Wednesday this week. The difference in price is not far off what I paid for a chain hotel for the night. I chose to pay a premium to travel by train and stay in a hotel the night before, but honestly, compared to £173 return for the trains alone plus nearly a tone for a hotel, I'd be tempted to catch an early flight for £31 return, no hotel needed, £8.50 for Edinburgh airport bus return, £26.42 for the Stansted Express under this fares proposal. I'm saving >£100 which I could spend on a 5-course taster menu in Aqua up the Shard.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2025 ==

Currently, with a railcard, you can buy a walk-up Super Off-Peak Return ticket from Liverpool Lime Street - London Euston for £30.70. This system would more than triple that!

I read this as Liverpool Street instead of Liverpool Lime Street at first and thought there's bigger problems are paying £30.70 for a journey you can do for £1.75 on the bus

 

[ainsworth74]

The main problem I think this represents is that it makes rail very expensive for long distances, and very cheap for short distances. The only way to deal with that is to provide a discount for travelling long distances.

Which is why, I believe, even when we had price per mile schemes there was a graduation in the charge per mile. X for a certain distance, then a lower rate at Y for mileages over X and so on.

 

[styles]

Which is why, I believe, even when we had price per mile schemes there was a graduation in the charge per mile. X for a certain distance, then a lower rate at Y for mileages over X and so on.

Do you happen to know whether it was based on [expected] travel miles, as the crow flies, or something else?

 

[ainsworth74]

Do you happen to know whether it was based on [expected] travel miles, as the crow flies, or something else?

Pass! I think I have an old timetable somewhere that has some sort of blurb about how fares are calculated but it's at home and I'm currently travelling further away from it!