Complexity isn't the Issue with Rail Fares...

[JonathanH]

I just don't understand why PAYG is considered a reasonable way to operate and a model for longer, more expensive journeys. It only works because the fares are low enough that opinion-formers tend not to care about them.

There are enough people who like the convenience of PAYG that it is seen as politically the way to go. As i noted in post 62 it just about works for more complicated journeys until you get disruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just don't understand why PAYG is considered a reasonable way to operate and a model for longer, more expensive journeys. It only works because the fares are low enough that opinion-formers tend not to care about them.

In the end it's optional. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. That isn't quite the case in the rump TfL area as paper tickets are penalty priced, but that isn't true of the wider Oval area (prices are exactly the same give or take that for practical reasons restrictions work a bit differently) and there's no indication that that would change.

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

There are enough people who like the convenience of PAYG that it is seen as politically the way to go. As i noted in post 62 it just about works for more complicated journeys until you get disruption.

It'd work fine in disruption too if TfL could just manage to set up a true Verbundtarif and not charge buses as if they were run entirely separately. I get that a bus only journey might be charged lower, but there's no reason a zone-to-zone journey should not be able to include bus journeys at no extra cost rather than one in the middle randomly resulting in the journey being split in two.

Disappointingly, this negative idea that buses are a separate thing rather than being an adjunct to a rapid transit rail system is pervading in new contactless systems like Manchester's too. Even aside from the complexity of what happens if you stick a bus in the middle of a journey, the idea of charging people an extra two quid for a bus to the station because they are inconvenienced by not having a railway station next to their home absolutely stinks, just like charging people £2 twice if they are unfortunate enough not to have a direct bus to their destination.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I just don't understand why PAYG is considered a reasonable way to operate and a model for longer, more expensive journeys.

People like PAYG because they pay for what they use and don't have to commit to a ticket in advance. In high-density urban areas this makes most sense. I don't think PAYG will ever be the way to go for long-distance travel though.

For Zone 1 centric travel yes. The cap is a moot point for travel not including Zone 1.

Fair point, I was focusing on zone 1 travel and the fact that evening peak travel goes towards the off-peak cap.

I still think, even after all these years, that the worst decision Boris ever made was abolishing the Z2-6 cap. But that's a different argument for a different day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People like PAYG because they pay for what they use and don't have to commit to a ticket in advance. In high-density urban areas this makes most sense. I don't think PAYG will ever be the way to go for long-distance travel though.

If we're moving away from long distance walk up off peak fares it probably isn't. If we kept them I'd certainly use it.

I would be inclined to say we'll more likely see zones of it around cities, though, probably roughly approximating to the present Combined Authority (formerly Passenger Transport Executive) areas.

 

[redreni]

In the end it's optional. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. That isn't quite the case in the rump TfL area as paper tickets are penalty priced, but that isn't true of the wider Oval area (prices are exactly the same give or take that for practical reasons restrictions work a bit differently) and there's no indication that that would change.

Well, there is: TPE are basically saying they're going to scrap on-the-day Advances and replace them with PAYG. So anything on the day other than PAYG is going to be penalty-priced, just like journeys within London Z1-6.

 

[Krokodil]

So anything on the day other than PAYG is going to be penalty-priced

You could argue that they already are

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see how you get from this...

Well, there is: TPE are basically saying they're going to scrap on-the-day Advances and replace them with PAYG.

to this.

So anything on the day other than PAYG is going to be penalty-priced, just like journeys within London Z1-6.

It says nothing of the sort. It just says that APOD will be removed in contactless areas, presumably to stop it undercutting contactless. It doesn't say that it won't be priced the same as Oval with the contactless fares the same as the paper ones (but single fare priced) which is what I'd expect to happen.

I don't really know about TPE, but I've noticed in the past that Northern APOD is very often if not almost always, if bought near the time of travel, very close to half the off peak day return. Thus, simply moving to single fare pricing would directly replace this - you don't have to overprice the walk up singles. Obviously deep discount Advances bought well in advance may continue to exist, they seem to suggest they will.

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

You could argue that they already are

Not in the Oval area, they are priced exactly the same. The restrictions work differently (so sometimes there are edge cases around the peaks when one is cheaper and sometimes the other) but that's unavoidable when they work completely differently, it's impossible to make them work exactly the same with restrictions because one is based on when you board trains and the other is based on when you tap in.

 

[Watershed]

That is not correct. An Oyster card which was validated so long ago that it has exceeded the maximum journey time will not be a valid ticket and a person entering into a TfL compulsory ticket area with such a card (such as by alighting from a train into a station) will be liable to penalty fare or prosecution under TfL byelaw 17 (1).

No it is not. "Valid ticket" is defined in the Byelaws as meaning (emphasis mine)

a ticket (including any associated photo/identity card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of the person using or attempting to use it and entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use. Where the terms attaching to the ticket require validation of the ticket such ticket shall not be considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of the Byelaws unless and until the ticket has been properly validated

And continues:

“validation” in connection with a smart card or electronic ticketing, includes the addition of money to the card and touching it on the card reader at the beginning and end of the journey, as appropriate.

As you can see, there is nothing that supports your suggestion that the elapsing of an arbitrary amount of time - which is not made public for some journeys - could undo the successful validation of a card at the start of the journey. Therefore it remains a valid ticket as defined by the Byelaws.

The maximum journey times purely concern the amount you will be charged for your journey. They have no effect on the validity of your Oyster card.

Any other interpretation would mean that those caught up in service disruption, or who for other reasons out of their control exceed the MJT, would all be committing a criminal offence. That is patently absurd.

 

[35B]

Going back to the OP, the scenario he paints is one where the vendor seeks to put the customer in the best possible position. The offers are in the customer's favour, and there is no penalty for not taking them up.

This is a very different experience from ticket purchase, where the railways have since the advent of the Apex and SuperSaver 35-odd years ago, managed to project the complexity of the underlying model in a way that is both relatively transparent, and difficult to navigate. This complexity, which is akin to the Boots example, is then compounded by the consequences of getting it wrong - a factor that increases the cognitive load on the purchaser.

If I choose the wrong deal in a shop, I just pay more. That may well be annoying, but is low consequence. The same mistake on the railway sees both a probably more expensive correction, and then more significant consequences (up to and including a criminal conviction) if I get it wrong. Higher stakes add stress - a situation compounded for the unfamiliar with the anxieties of "am I on the right platform/in the right train".

Retailers generally find that customers are happier when their purchase is low stress. I'm therefore not surprised that the customer satisfaction statistics for the (objectively poor value) 70 minute tickets are higher - ordinary purchasers, perhaps trying to balance their ticket choice with other timings, feel they have the ability to manage their situation.

The existence of fares expertise outside the industry should be unnecessary. An ordinary, intelligent and careful, consumer should be able to go to a station or online, and purchase a ticket and have confidence that they've bought the right thing.

 

[Krokodil]

Not in the Oval area

My comment was more referring to the existing TPE fares as penalty-priced

 

[redreni]

I don't see how you get from this...



to this.



It says nothing of the sort. It just says that APOD will be removed in contactless areas, presumably to stop it undercutting contactless. It doesn't say that it won't be priced the same as Oval with the contactless fares the same as the paper ones (but single fare priced) which is what I'd expect to happen.

I don't really know about TPE, but I've noticed in the past that Northern APOD is very often if not almost always, if bought near the time of travel, very close to half the off peak day return. Thus, simply moving to single fare pricing would directly replace this - you don't have to overprice the walk up singles. Obviously deep discount Advances bought well in advance may continue to exist, they seem to suggest they will.

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

Maybe TPE-priced fares are different. I don't buy enough short-distance fares in the north to be able to make generalisations. I've definitely looked at shorter journeys and found there isn't an off-peak single or return fare, or there is but it's considerably more expensive than the on-the-day Advances (and sometimes the same as the Anytime). If the introduction of PAYG is going to see single-leg-priced walk-up tickets introduced at the same price as the on-the-day Advances currently are and the PAYG fare will be, great. I'm unsure how that would get them their extra revenue, though.

It depends what they do. Will it be like London in that the PAYG scheme won't support Railcards, and there will be a medium-term project to add such support which never reveals which Railcards will be supported and never makes any progress? In which case, would they want to give people the option of buying a ticket for the same price as PAYG which they would be able to discount with a Railcard (which London has done for newly Ovalised fares, but pointedly didn't do for station pairs that got PAYG earlier, even going so far as to remove off-peak fares in order to drive PAYG take-up)?

Not in the Oval area, they are priced exactly the same.

Only the Ovalised fares. Plenty of fares within the Oval area don't have Ovalised fares, because they're not part of the latest phase of expansion or they're wholly within Z1-6.

The restrictions work differently (so sometimes there are edge cases around the peaks when one is cheaper and sometimes the other) but that's unavoidable when they work completely differently, it's impossible to make them work exactly the same with restrictions because one is based on when you board trains and the other is based on when you tap in.

The Ovalised fares just say not valid on trains timed to depart between 04:29 and 09:30 or 16:00 and 19:00. (E.g. Eynsford to Cookham).

It's not made clear if that's only the timed departure time from the station where you board, or if you can fall afoul of the restriction by using a train that is timed to depart your origin before the restricted hours but then calls at an intermediate station during the restricted hours. They could have made it a boarding time restriction rather than a 'timed to depart' time restriction, but chose not to. Nor is there an obvious reason why they couldn't be more aligned to the PAYG restriction by making them based on actual rather than timed departure times. So I'm not sure I agree they've done all they can to align the peak restrictions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe TPE-priced fares are different. I don't buy enough short-distance fares in the north to be able to make generalisations. I've definitely looked at shorter journeys and found there isn't an off-peak single or return fare, or there is but it's considerably more expensive than the on-the-day Advances (and sometimes the same as the Anytime). If the introduction of PAYG is going to see single-leg-priced walk-up tickets introduced at the same price as the on-the-day Advances currently are and the PAYG fare will be, great. I'm unsure how that would get them their extra revenue, though.

I don't think there's an awful lot of revenue to be gained on Northern services to be honest. TPE is probably going to gain it on longer distance services by moving to an LNER like pricing model that allows much easier stealth price increases.

The Ovalised fares just say not valid on trains timed to depart between 04:29 and 09:30 or 16:00 and 19:00. (E.g. Eynsford to Cookham).

It's not made clear if that's only the timed departure time from the station where you board, or if you can fall afoul of the restriction by using a train that is timed to depart your origin before the restricted hours but then calls at an intermediate station during the restricted hours. They could have made it a boarding time restriction rather than a 'timed to depart' time restriction, but chose not to. Nor is there an obvious reason why they couldn't be more aligned to the PAYG restriction by making them based on actual rather than timed departure times. So I'm not sure I agree they've done all they can to align the peak restrictions.

It is a boarding time restriction.

There are only three ways that a restriction can be implemented in planners:

1. The time at which you board a train at any point during your itinerary;
2. The time at which a train you use in your itinerary arrives at a station AFTER the one you boarded, even if you alight before or after it;
3. Barring a specific train by retail service ID in its entirety.

(3) is hardly ever used because keeping it up to date is a faff. The other two don't allow implementation of what you suggest, thus because itineraries form a contract you can't actually implement that because it would have no practical force. It is similarly not possible to get itineraries based on actual departure times, but that's irrelevant to the comparison because it's not how contactless works either - the only thing that matters with that is tap in time. You can perfectly validly, for example, tap in at Bletchley at 0629 and then board the 0634 service to Euston, indeed doing that is fairly popular. (Indeed there's a bit of unpublished leeway in tap in times so tapping in at 0633 may also work, but I've not tried it).

The one thing I would concede they could do for better alignment is change that from 0429-0930 to 0629-0930. Though because 0630 isn't particularly early if you're commuting in from outside London (by comparison to the fact that it's really quite early to be knocking around the Tube), I suspect they might well be working with TfL to see if that time could be changed to 0430 rather than changing their restriction codes.

It is possible to put things in restrictions like "a connecting service may be used to complete a journey begun at a valid time", but you can't implement them so you lay yourself open to accusations of overcharging (feel free to level these at WMT if you like). Thus, sensibly, Oval has stuck to putting things in the text restriction that can be implemented (and avoided needing loads of restriction codes, one per station, which would rapidly get out of date). That has an annoying effect that a connectional journey on paper tickets is more restricted than one on contactless where it crosses the evening peak, but you can work round it by splitting so while not ideal it's probably the best option overall to keep them fairly close and only put stuff in the text that you can actually implement.

 

[redreni]

I don't think there's an awful lot of revenue to be gained on Northern services to be honest. TPE is probably going to gain it on longer distance services by moving to an LNER like pricing model that allows much easier stealth price increases.



It is a boarding time restriction.

There are only three ways that a restriction can be implemented in planners:

1. The time at which you board a train at any point during your itinerary;
2. The time at which a train you use in your itinerary arrives at a station AFTER the one you boarded, even if you alight before or after it;
3. Barring a specific train by retail service ID in its entirety.

(3) is hardly ever used because keeping it up to date is a faff. The other two don't allow implementation of what you suggest, thus because itineraries form a contract you can't actually implement that because it would have no practical force. It is similarly not possible to get itineraries based on actual departure times, but that's irrelevant to the comparison because it's not how contactless works either - the only thing that matters with that is tap in time. You can perfectly validly, for example, tap in at Bletchley at 0629 and then board the 0634 service to Euston, indeed doing that is fairly popular. (Indeed there's a bit of unpublished leeway in tap in times so tapping in at 0633 may also work, but I've not tried it).

The one thing I would concede they could do for better alignment is change that from 0429-0930 to 0629-0930. Though because 0630 isn't particularly early if you're commuting in from outside London (by comparison to the fact that it's really quite early to be knocking around the Tube), I suspect they might well be working with TfL to see if that time could be changed to 0430 rather than changing their restriction codes.

It is possible to put things in restrictions like "a connecting service may be used to complete a journey begun at a valid time", but you can't implement them so you lay yourself open to accusations of overcharging (feel free to level these at WMT if you like). Thus, sensibly, Oval has stuck to putting things in the text restriction that can be implemented (and avoided needing loads of restriction codes, one per station, which would rapidly get out of date). That has an annoying effect that a connectional journey on paper tickets is more restricted than one on contactless where it crosses the evening peak, but you can work round it by splitting so while not ideal it's probably the best option overall to keep them fairly close and only put stuff in the text that you can actually implement.

If it's a boarding restriction it should say "not valid to board trains timed to depart between". But it doesn't.

Also, restrictions based on actual departure times can be and are implemented; Railcard holders routinely find the operative restriction on when they can depart their point of origin is a time restriction on the Railcard, which is based on when you travel not when the train was timed to depart. Journey planners have no trouble implementing this: they just assume everything will run to time so do not give you an itinerary for a train that is timed to depart before the Railcard time restriction ends, but of course you can use your Railcard-discounted ticket on such a train if it is late enough.

Not everything is, can or should be determined by journey planners and itineraries.

 

[JonathanH]

Not everything is, can or should be determined by journey planners and itineraries.

Maybe not, but it is how many normal passengers think the system works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's a boarding restriction it should say "not valid to board trains timed to depart between". But it doesn't.

It de-facto is, because itineraries form the contract and the only three things you can implement in itineraries are what I said they are. It cannot be stricter than an itinerary because that forms a contract when a ticket is bought by it.

It would be better if it said that, I'd agree, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't in practice change anything.

For another example, see similarly-worded restriction 9I:

Not valid on trains timed to depart:

• London Euston after 04:29 and before 09:26 or after 15:00 and before 18:45 (Restrictions do not apply on Fridays)
• London Kings Cross after 02:59 and before 09:06 or after 14:59 and before 18:59 (and before 18:15 on Fridays);
• London Liverpool Street after 04:29 and before 09:31 or after 16:28 and before 18:35;
• London Marylebone after 06:29 and before 09:00 or after 16:00 and before 19:00;
• London Paddington after 04:29 and before 08:10 or after 16:40 and before 18:31;
• London St Pancras International after 04:29 and before 10:26 or after 15:15 and before 18:59;
• London Waterloo after 04:29 and before 08:15;
• Kensington Olympia after 04:29 and before 09:15 or after 15:14 and before 18:12;
• Clapham Junction after 04:29 and before 09:30;
• Bedford after 04:29 and before 09:01;
• Luton or Luton Airport Parkway after 04:29 and before 09:01 or after 16:29 and before 18:59;
• Milton Keynes Central after 04:29 and before 09:51;(Restrictions do not apply on Fridays)
• Reading after 04:29 and before 08:35 or after 17:10 and before 19:01;
• Stevenage after 02:59 and before 09:19 or after 15:06 and before 19:01 (and before 18:35 on Fridays);
• Stratford (London) after 04:29 and before 09:30 or after 16:29 and before 18:34;
• Watford Junction after 04:29 and before 09:38 or after 15:00 and before 18:38.(Restrictions do not apply on Fridays)

If that didn't mean "to board trains timed to depart at..." what would be the point in having separate ones for MKC and WFJ because they would just take the restrictions from Euston? They are separate, in fact, because the restrictions from those two are different, in particular MKC has no evening restriction on this restriction code. Your reading would suggest it does, but every single journey planner will inform you otherwise, and indeed franchise agreements (which are no longer relevant, but were when these were set) ban there being northbound evening peak restrictions from MKC so your reading cannot be true.

Also, restrictions based on actual departure times can be and are implemented; Railcard holders routinely find the operative restriction on when they can depart their point of origin is a time restriction on the Railcard, which is based on when you travel not when the train was timed to depart. Journey planners have no trouble implementing this: they just assume everything will run to time so do not give you an itinerary for a train that is timed to depart before the Railcard time restriction ends, but of course you can use your Railcard-discounted ticket on such a train if it is late enough.

It's possible for the text restriction to be less strict as it is in this case (see also the WMT "connecting service" thing I mentioned). It can't be stricter as one has an absolute contractual right to travel by the itinerary against which one's ticket was sold.

I've explained what the restrictions on Oval area tickets mean, and you can confirm that by way of any journey planner if you wish. If you choose to disbelieve me fine, but that won't change what they mean and will not introduce an invented set of stricter restrictions you are inventing in order to further your point however much you may want it to.

 

[redreni]

It de-facto is, because itineraries form the contract and the only three things you can implement in itineraries are what I said they are. It cannot be stricter than an itinerary because that forms a contract when a ticket is bought by it.

It would be better if it said that, I'd agree, but the fact that it doesn't doesn't in practice change anything.

For another example, see similarly-worded restriction 9I:



If that didn't mean "to board trains timed to depart at..." what would be the point in having separate ones for MKC and WFJ because they would just take the restrictions from Euston? They are separate, in fact, because the restrictions from those two are different, in particular MKC has no evening restriction on this restriction code. Your reading would suggest it does, but every single journey planner will inform you otherwise, and indeed franchise agreements (which are no longer relevant, but were when these were set) ban there being northbound evening peak restrictions from MKC so your reading cannot be true.



It's possible for the text restriction to be less strict as it is in this case (see also the WMT "connecting service" thing I mentioned). It can't be stricter as one has an absolute contractual right to travel by the itinerary against which one's ticket was sold.

I've explained what the restrictions on Oval area tickets mean, and you can confirm that by way of any journey planner if you wish. If you choose to disbelieve me fine, but that won't change what they mean and will not introduce an invented set of stricter restrictions you are inventing in order to further your point however much you may want it to.

I think we may have our wires crossed. I'm not arguing for any particular interpretation, I said the restriction code was unclear (which it is) and could be clearer (which it could).

When a restriction is unclear I will always advocate for the interpretation most favourable to the passenger, and when the text differs from journey planners' implementation of it I will advocate for whichever is more favourable to the passenger.

All I'm saying is the restrictions for Ovalised tickets could remain as they are in terms of journey planner implementation but could be reworded to make them clearer and align them better with the PAYG restrictions (particularly by letting people take late running trains after the end of the peaks).

 

[island]

No it is not. "Valid ticket" is defined in the Byelaws as meaning (emphasis mine)


And continues:


As you can see, there is nothing that supports your suggestion that the elapsing of an arbitrary amount of time - which is not made public for some journeys - could undo the successful validation of a card at the start of the journey. Therefore it remains a valid ticket as defined by the Byelaws.

The maximum journey times purely concern the amount you will be charged for your journey. They have no effect on the validity of your Oyster card.

Any other interpretation would mean that those caught up in service disruption, or who for other reasons out of their control exceed the MJT, would all be committing a criminal offence. That is patently absurd.

If your interpretation were valid, it would follow that anyone could ride around the system for hours and hours after their Travelcard or other period ticket expired, because their ticket was valid when they entered. That is equally if not more absurd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If your interpretation were valid, it would follow that anyone could ride around the system for hours and hours after their Travelcard or other period ticket expired, because their ticket was valid when they entered. That is equally if not more absurd.

That would be an incredibly niche activity (even given where it would be possible, i.e. only on nights when the Night Tube runs and only on those routes) and thus really isn't of any sort of concern whatsoever.

 

[Egg Centric]

No it is not. "Valid ticket" is defined in the Byelaws as meaning (emphasis mine)


And continues:


As you can see, there is nothing that supports your suggestion that the elapsing of an arbitrary amount of time - which is not made public for some journeys - could undo the successful validation of a card at the start of the journey. Therefore it remains a valid ticket as defined by the Byelaws.

The maximum journey times purely concern the amount you will be charged for your journey. They have no effect on the validity of your Oyster card.

Any other interpretation would mean that those caught up in service disruption, or who for other reasons out of their control exceed the MJT, would all be committing a criminal offence. That is patently absurd.

Doesn't the entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using bit fail past the time limit?

 

[Watershed]

If your interpretation were valid, it would follow that anyone could ride around the system for hours and hours after their Travelcard or other period ticket expired, because their ticket was valid when they entered. That is equally if not more absurd.

The fact that there are some, edge-case unintended outcomes does not change the wording. It is very clear that the prerequisite is having sufficient credit and touching in - there is nothing about the elapsed journey time.

As I have highlighted, the interpretation you are suggesting would cause a great many people to commit criminal offences during disruption - which clearly cannot be the case.

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

Doesn't the entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using bit fail past the time limit?

Where do TfL's Conditions of Carriage say that Oyster ceases to be valid when the MJT is exceeded?

 

[Harpo]

The existence of fares expertise outside the industry should be unnecessary.

Exactly. Most financial guidance exists to discriminate between a variety of suppliers, not to guide us on purchasing from what is already, to all intents and purposes, a single entity.

 

[Starmill]

That's just an excuse.

The "network" involved in a journey from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport is not complex. There are no alternative routes one might reasonably consider taking. Yet because there are three operators involved there is an astonishing array of tickets on offer. TPE only, TfW only, on-the-day advances for Northern or TfW, Airport Advances for TPE (which in the event of a delayed flight can be used on a later train operated by TPE, Northern or ERM but not TfW) and the choice of an Anytime or Off Peak tickets for the various operators which might be valid from 0900 onwards or only from 0930 until the evening peak. All three operators are nationalised so everything ultimately goes to or comes from the Treasury anyway. You might argue that journey planner ticket issuing systems make it easy for the passenger to choose which time to depart but anyone familiar with platform 13 at Manchester Piccadilly will know that trains almost never turn up at the advertised time. Bear in mind that most of the people going to Manchester Airport are not regular rail travellers and many will be foreign nationals.

The network there isn't complicated, the tickets between these two locations have been made complicated because it suits Pricing Managers to have them so.


It may be simple but having to pay double for a ticket from Holyhead to Oxford when travelling on the 09:23 which doesn't even get near a Voyager until gone lunchtime is ridiculous. Scotrail simplified things properly. The day that Voyagers are replaced by proper trains on XC and the fares dropped to sensible levels I will throw a raucous party.


Yes, like the Swiss Half Fare Card. No silly rules, no odd discrepancies between 16-25 and 26-30, no giving discounts to 60 year old Finance Directors while making the minimum wage intern pay a minimum fare. Just have a national railcard available to all (other than the Disabled one which should differ by allowing a companion). You can discount the purchase price for students or pensioners if you like, but as soon as it is paid for it is a standard product.


It would be a lot easier to teach if there was less to cover. On my Guards' course we spent an entire day on railcards and all the differences between them. If we didn't have to devote that day to that aspect of complexity we might have been able to devote some time to what can and can't be excessed.

By far the most likely outcome is that all of the operator specific fares except for Lumo, Hull Trains and Grand Central will be withdrawn in the near future. For most journeys in England there will probably be a single at about half the price of the Off Peak Return where currently available. There probably won't be any Advance tickets available at all on the day of travel for journeys in the pay as you go areas.

Now you say it's a political choice what level to set the simplified fares at, and that's correct. But for practical purposes where can that fare be? In the case of Manchester - Chester it will probably be a flexible single for about £13, with some similar prices for Advance tickets to today but in much more restrictive quota. If you made it about £5, which would be where I'd put it then you'd never deliver the capacity. And that's pretty much exactly the same as every other regional route in England, we don't have the capacity. I get that it's nice to imagine that the government would support a single low price single for that journey, but they won't. So any simplification means much less efficient revenue management: your choice is busy trains being so busy that people are standing in the aisles and at risk of being left behind, or trains during most of the day with vacant unsold seats.

In Scotland, rural lines generally haven't benefited from the recent simplification and reduction, and there's barely any commuting going on trains to Aberdeen (don't @ me if you are one of them). So it's only really the central belt commuting and AM peak long-distance that got a price cut. And the Scottish internal long-distance market is pretty small compared to England. So really this trade-off was only present in Central Belt commuting markets - where they already have expanded capacity significantly recently.

In Belgium, a single low price single for nearly everybody works well. But that's because they offer enormous capacity, most of which spends most of the day running around completely empty. That's a great way to solve the issue at hand, but unfortunately it's the equivalent of many hundreds of billions of pounds of capital spending on modern infrastructure which the Belgians have been spending and the English haven't.

So while it's easy for train conductors to whinge that it's all the pricing manager's fault - it's actually down to their revenue management expertise that the industry has grown as much as it has in recent years, and has weathered a pandemic far, far better than it would have done if it'd been happening in the late 90s when most tickets were just single or return and that was it. The current set of rules is rubbish but the new one is likely to lead to faster and peak time trains becoming more crowded than today, and slower trains or ones at the extremes of the day have even fewer people travelling on them than today. I don't think anyone wants that, but that's the likely outcome.

West Midlands Trains have pushed back very hard to be allowed to keep their operator specific fares. Frankly it's a relief that they've made the effort when most of the rest of the industry seems to have given up. Anyone who thinks it's sensible for the London - Birmingham stopping trains to cost the same as Avanti on the day of travel is kidding themselves. Especially when Avanti is like London - Newcastle is now.

A lot of people will see the price jump overnight by between 50% and 100% when the operator specific fares are withdrawn, and the Advance tickets are never avaliable on the day of travel any more, and realise quickly that the only way they can continue getting where they need to be at a sensible price is to get (another) car.

 

[Egg Centric]

Where do TfL's Conditions of Carriage say that Oyster ceases to be valid when the MJT is exceeded?

It doesn't. Does it need to though?

It seems reasonably arguable either way to me (the charging of max fares once past the MJT that is mentioned in the conditions of carriage muddies the water even more imo, as that could be taken to bolster either argument!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

By far the most likely outcome is that all of the operator specific fares except for Lumo, Hull Trains and Grand Central will be withdrawn in the near future. For most journeys in England there will probably be a single at about half the price of the Off Peak Return where currently available. There probably won't be any Advance tickets available at all on the day of travel for journeys in the pay as you go areas.

Now you say it's a political choice what level to set the simplified fares at, and that's correct. But for practical purposes where can that fare be? In the case of Manchester - Chester it will probably be a flexible single for about £13, with some similar prices for Advance tickets to today but in much more restrictive quota. If you made it about £5, which would be where I'd put it then you'd never deliver the capacity. And that's pretty much exactly the same as every other regional route in England, we don't have the capacity. I get that it's nice to imagine that the government would support a single low price single for that journey, but they won't. So any simplification means much less efficient revenue management: your choice is busy trains being so busy that people are standing in the aisles and at risk of being left behind, or trains during most of the day with vacant unsold seats.

Are there many cases in the PAYG areas or likely ones where you would want to push people onto a specific TOC for capacity reasons or market segmentation? I can't think of one, aside possibly from XC around Birmingham.

Outside of the PAYG areas it very much looks like Advances will replace TOC specific tickets in terms of differentiating e.g. WMT and Avanti services between Euston and Crewe. I can't see that differential going away as it has genuinely grown the market - it is in a way a bit like Ouigo vs InOui in France, it just might be delivered in a different way. And that would have to include APOD as well because otherwise you're throwing a load of custom away.

Where that sort of differential gets difficult is 70 Minute Flex type tickets....otherwise you could just buy a WMT ticket from Euston to Crewe for pennies and then "flex" it onto Avanti...

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

It doesn't. Does it need to though?

I'd say so, yes. How can something be invalid without telling people that it is? These times aren't even published, unlike the validity date on a paper ticket.

There is absolutely no way this would stand up in Court. These times exist to deal with situations where people don't touch out, not to catch people out for going on one too many lap of the Circle Line.

 

[Starmill]

Are there many cases in the PAYG areas or likely ones where you would want to push people onto a specific TOC for capacity reasons or market segmentation? I can't think of one, aside possibly from XC around Birmingham.

Outside of the PAYG areas it very much looks like Advances will replace TOC specific tickets in terms of differentiating e.g. WMT and Avanti services between Euston and Crewe. I can't see that differential going away as it has genuinely grown the market - it is in a way a bit like Ouigo vs InOui in France, it just might be delivered in a different way. And that would have to include APOD as well because otherwise you're throwing a load of custom away.

Where that sort of differential gets difficult is 70 Minute Flex type tickets....otherwise you could just buy a WMT ticket from Euston to Crewe for pennies and then "flex" it onto Avanti...

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



I'd say so, yes. How can something be invalid without telling people that it is? These times aren't even published, unlike the validity date on a paper ticket.

There is absolutely no way this would stand up in Court. These times exist to deal with situations where people don't touch out, not to catch people out for going on one too many lap of the Circle Line.

SNCF aren't really comparable because they always allow IC/Ouigo/TGV to be booked at "market" rate right up to departure time. Indeed it is the only permissible option as the flexible TER tickets aren't valid. That's not at all similar to the fares reform proposal here which assumes tickets will be valid on all services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

SNCF aren't really comparable because they always allow IC/Ouigo/TGV to be booked at "market" rate right up to departure time. Indeed it is the only permissible option as the flexible TER tickets aren't valid. That's not at all similar to the fares reform proposal here which assumes tickets will be valid on all services.

I think it is similar, because the above proposal for longer distance journeys suggests it will be LNER style where the Anytime is a high cap and most people will travel on Advances or whatever the middle tier ends up as. Apart from in the high peak LNER does generally have Advances on sale very close to departure (for instance at this very second the 1800 Kings X-Newcastle is showing an Advance fare of £147.80 despite departing in eight minutes).

In urban contactless zones the traditional UK approach would seem to still apply, but I'm not aware of many cases where TOC routed fares genuinely broaden markets in such areas, they're usually priced very similarly to the other TOC.

 

[Starmill]

I think it is similar, because the above proposal for longer distance journeys suggests it will be LNER style where the Anytime is a high cap and most people will travel on Advances or whatever the middle tier ends up as. Apart from in the high peak LNER does generally have Advances on sale very close to departure (for instance at this very second the 1800 Kings X-Newcastle is showing an Advance fare of £147.80 despite departing in eight minutes).

In urban contactless zones the traditional UK approach would seem to still apply, but I'm not aware of many cases where TOC routed fares genuinely broaden markets in such areas, they're usually priced very similarly to the other TOC.

I think you're probably expecting a much smaller pay as you go zone in that case. Nearly all the Northern Only walk up fares would be a huge rise if you removed them.

Most people would rightly pan a Leeds - York single of over £13 as a rip off, but I bet that's what it'll be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you're probably expecting a much smaller pay as you go zone in that case. Nearly all the Northern Only walk up fares would be a huge rise if you removed them.

I'm expecting PAYG zones around the major cities, yes, not across the whole of Northern. In the wider area the Northern Only walk up fares would be replaced by APOD which are only removed in the PAYG zones. At least that's how I read it.

 

[35B]

I'm expecting PAYG zones around the major cities, yes, not across the whole of Northern. In the wider area the Northern Only walk up fares would be replaced by APOD which are only removed in the PAYG zones. At least that's how I read it.

Some big assumptions there, which will test to destruction the operation of PAYG in the area (e.g. how will overlapping Manchester and Leeds PAYG areas operate?)

 

[DDB]

I just don't understand why PAYG is considered a reasonable way to operate and a model for longer, more expensive journeys. It only works because the fares are low enough that opinion-formers tend not to care about them.

There are enough people who like the convenience of PAYG that it is seen as politically the way to go. As i noted in post 62 it just about works for more complicated journeys until you get disruption.

I think most people don't know what happens during a journey with an Oyster style PAYG tube journey and frankly should they.

Specifically that you get charged the maximum possible fare when you tap in and get a refund for most of it when you tap out having made a shorter cheaper journey.

This only works with relatively small fares not on a national scale where everyone tapping in at Penzance would be temporarily charged the fare to Wick!