Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I think the issue there is that if you want a simple fare system, then that fare system isn't going to be able to take into account the specifics of each individual train. We generally charge more for travel before (roughly) 9:30am because most trains across the UK are busier during that...
www.railforums.co.uk
Perhaps a minimun fare before 0930 might be a useful compromise... So as to penalise commuters and not long distance travellers? Say £45
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think the issue there is that if you want a simple fare system, then that fare system isn't going to be able to take into account the specifics of each individual train. We generally charge more for travel before (roughly) 9:30am because most trains across the UK are busier during that...
www.railforums.co.uk
Perhaps a minimun fare before 0930 might be a useful compromise... So as to penalise commuters and not long distance travellers? Say £45
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A nasty unethical nationalised train company (let’s call LNER) but a restriction of not before 0930 on many long distance tickets forcing people to split at Edinburgh. Imagine you were connecting into the 0930 Edinburgh- London (were and off-peak is valid) on a Scotrail service from your local station. Because of the not before you can’t use an off peak. Minimum fares are much better. You will always get issue on low frequency lines on 0929 departures
It's one for another thread but I'm inclined to say off peak should be standardised on 0930 as XC did. The edges can always be smoothed with Advances. That could include Railcards.
While there are anomalies in any system, "off peak is always 0930 or later" is genuinely simple.
It's one for another thread but I'm inclined to say off peak should be standardised on 0930 as XC did. The edges can always be smoothed with Advances. That could include Railcards.
While there are anomalies in any system, "off peak is always 0930 or later" is genuinely simple.
I always think of the 0927 from Plymouth to Aberdeen when the simplicity of an 0930 restriction is mentioned.
Clearly there may come a time when long-distance off-peak tickets no longer exist, in favour of only having advance purchase and anytime fares, and in that case the 0930 issue will fall away, but for the meanwhile, a passenger can't use an off-peak ticket from Plymouth, but can from all later stations. The way round that being a split at Totnes.
Off-peak from 0930 (or railcards from 0930) does lead to the problem of splits being cheaper, but perhaps with booking engines that reflect that it is not so much of a problem.
How much genuinely leisure travel by over 60s begins before 0930, and importantly perhaps, how much such travel would not occur at all were such a limitation in place given either (a) an effectively worthless All-Line Rover outside the London area or (b) an effectively 50% uplift in other fares?
I can say for certain that it would quite simply stop me from buying an ALR at all.
You have to make exceptions for long rural lines with sparse services (Far North, Kyle, WHL, far end of Stranraer - just give a few Scottish ones) otherwise people there are really shafted if there’s a 4 hour gap after the 09.10. The easements from Rover restrictions are quite a good indication of where this would be needed.
For selfish reasons I prefer the system as is. I can take a 07.30 train ex Preston that arrives in Euston about 10.30 so outside the peak. My senior railcard would definitely lose some benefit if there was a blanket nothing before 09.30 restriction.
It's probably time for me to point out (again!) that one of the key reasons for a 16-25 (and now 26-30) Railcards being valid at all times, subject to a minimum discounted fare before 10:00 on weekdays.
Let's consider Stevenage to London, an Anytime Day Return costs £28.80 which is expensive, especially for a younger person at the start of their career who travels into London for work. Don't fall into the trap of thinking every job in London is well paid. A season ticket is of little help as you have to travel at least five days a week to make it worthwhile (weekly season is £122.70).
The 16-25 and 26-30 means that someone can travel to work in London for a more paletable £19.15 per day - and they can purchase tickets on a daily basis rather than having to pay a large lump sum up front for a season ticket.
Simplifying these railcards by putting a blanket 09:30 restriction would be a very bad move and not a good move for a Government at a time when there are fewer job opportunities than before.
It's probably time for me to point out (again!) that one of the key reasons for a 16-25 (and now 26-30) Railcards being valid at all times, subject to a minimum discounted fare before 10:00 on weekdays.
It really isn't. Hybrid working did not exist when the then Young Persons Railcard minimum fare approach was invented, and in real terms the minimum was much higher than now. It exists for one sole reason - to allow long distance journeys to be started earlier than the cutoff while preventing commuting.
The ticket offered for the use case you mention is the flexi season. Yes, the discount is woeful but that is what is intended for that use case. You can also do single in, discounted single home as many Network Railcard users do.
It has gained that as a side effect, but it was never intended for that, so removing an unintentional side effect of the minimum fares not even nearly keeping pace with fare inflation is not an unfair thing to do.
Back then Advances (APEX) barely existed, so you needed a differentiator between commuting and long distance, and this was it. Northern, by offering Advances near enough across the board, has of course made a bit of a mess of it...
It really isn't. Hybrid working did not exist when the then Young Persons Railcard minimum fare approach was invented, and in real terms the minimum was much higher than now. It exists for one sole reason - to allow long distance journeys to be started earlier than the cutoff while preventing commuting.
The ticket offered for the use case you mention is the flexi season. Yes, the discount is woeful but that is what is intended for that use case. You can also do single in, discounted single home as many Network Railcard users do.
It has gained that as a side effect, but it was never intended for that, so removing an unintentional side effect of the minimum fares not even nearly keeping pace with fare inflation is not an unfair thing to do.
Back then Advances (APEX) barely existed, so you needed a differentiator between commuting and long distance, and this was it. Northern, by offering Advances near enough across the board, has of course made a bit of a mess of it...
I disagree. Not every job is a hybrid job, particularly at the lower end of the jobs market where many of the jobs are lively to be filled by younger workers.
The 26-30 Railcard, launched only a few years ago, could have had a blanket 09:30 restriction but the fact that it doesn't suggests that the Government/DfT/RDG knew that it could be used for commuting and were happy with this. I seem to remember it being heralded as a way of reducing the cost of living for 26-30 year olds at the time, not something marketed specifically as a leisure only product.
Don't under estimate the costs pressure that younger people are under, a significant increase in rail fares both in % and absolute terms to commute to a job in a large city would not be a good look for a Government trying to do something about the cost of living for younger people.
You're missing the point that someone at the start of their career, generally earning much less than someone in their 40s or 50s, should receive some help with their rail fares to get to work, especially where these are expensve in absolute terms.
My example about Stevenage to London demonstrates this, and there will be many other examples around the country.
You're missing the point that someone at the start of their career, generally earning much less than someone in their 40s or 50s, should receive some help with their rail fares to get to work, especially where these are expensve in absolute terms.
I'm not. I am not commenting on whether something like this SHOULD be in place. I am commenting on the fact (and it is a fact, given the evidence of its original level against fares at the time) that this was not the reason for this approach being taken by the 16-25 Railcard because the conditions for it to be necessary (financially squeezed young people) or effective (low enough minimum fare against fare levels) did not exist at the point the decision was taken to go with a minimum fare.
It may be the case that this was the intent with the 26-30 of course as this came much later. It is clear that the 16-25 has gained this role to some extent but it was clearly not designed to do so originally because all sensible commuter fares when it came about would have been under the minimum fare.
It may also be that the absence of a minimum fare in summer was in part to allow for commuting to summer jobs but not all year.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To comment on whether it SHOULD be in place, my answer would be that we should simply reduce commuter Anytime fares significantly (to be much closer to the price of a day on a weekly season based on 5 days, indeed potentially to that level and withdrawing the weekly season), as a mobile workforce is a good thing at any age. Not adapt primarily leisure products to discount them.
To comment on whether it SHOULD be in place, my answer would be that we should simply reduce commuter Anytime fares significantly (to be much closer to the price of a day on a weekly season), as a mobile workforce is a good thing at any age. Not adapt primarily leisure products to discount them.
Why do we need to make it complicated? Just make all railcards valid all day long.Or even better, merge all the different railcards into a single concession card.
There may be some winners who don't really "deserve" the reduced fares but it's small fry overall and worth it for the simpler system. If we don't think certain groups should be entitled to such generous discounts on the railway, that could be addressed separately by re-visiting eligibility for the railcard in the first place.
Because if we get rid of premium fares for those travelling out of necessity and thus willing to pay more, the effect is higher fares for those travelling for leisure who might as a result switch to the car.
(You could also add subsidy, but anyone who thinks that's on the agenda in England is frankly up there with the birds )
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If we don't think certain groups should be entitled to such generous discounts on the railway, that could be addressed separately by re-visiting eligibility for the railcard in the first place.
Or we keep the eligibility and accept these are leisure products and so 0930 is a sensible start time for validity across* the Railcard portfolio.
* Possibly except the Disabled card, the reason for which being that part of the reason for its generosity is that many holders are medically prevented from driving - it isn't just a leisure discount product like the others, it's an analogy to Motability. If it doesn't encompass everyone who would be so prevented it arguably should.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A simple "not before X" with that time standard across the network is certainly simple. Its effects can be smoothed using Advances and splits as well as single fare pricing - it isn't possible to have any form of time restriction without anomalies, and the money is not there to follow Scotland in abolishing the distinction, unless it is done "LNER style" which few here want. And if we do move to single fare pricing as seems to be the way, the Railcard can still be used on the way home by purchasing two singles instead of a return.
An alternative approach might be an "All Day Railcard" that's valid, well, all day, but costs substantially more than a standard "Leisure Railcard". I don't know how you'd price that so as to encourage people to use the train, but not reduce revenue overall.
Or if you want to go really complex, the "All Day" card could be a carnet type thing, where you spend £100 and get a set number of discounted fares (let's say 10, so you'd only use it if the discount was greater than £10).
Want even more complexity? You can combine "charges" and stack discounts on a single purchase - use 1 charge to get 20% off, 2 charges gets you 35%, cap it at 3 charges for a 45% discount. It'd be completely unworkable in practice, of course...
An alternative approach might be an "All Day Railcard" that's valid, well, all day, but costs substantially more than a standard "Leisure Railcard". I don't know how you'd price that so as to encourage people to use the train, but not reduce revenue overall.
This isn't a bad idea. Similarly not sure what the pricing would need to be, but a higher price could be mitigated by it being a monthly direct debit product.
The figures would be complex, but I've toyed with the idea of figures around these as what I would see as reasonable myself:
"Demographic" leisure Railcard: £35 a year
National leisure Railcard: £12 a month DD with a minimum term of 12 months, or £150 annual up front if you must
And double those for an All Day Railcard. Personally I would sign up for £24/month and forget about it, and probably use rail a lot more as a result (and potentially even on some journeys travel first class by default as it would bring prices down to European levels of uplift). An advantage of going DD would be "gym membership syndrome" i.e. people would sign up and just keep it going without reassessing value each year.
This isn't a bad idea. Similarly not sure what the pricing would need to be, but a higher price could be mitigated by it being a monthly direct debit product.
I use a Senior Railcard, and a 9.30am restriction would pretty much kill it for me. Our local route has an hourly service, setting off after 9.30 pretty much makes longer day trips impossible, the 9.30 from Home doesn't arrive in Doncaster until 11.20, with connections day trips are not going to be possible.
I realise the DfT are pulling all the financial strings, but really there needs to be wider debate about rail fares and subsidies. According to Google AI 46% of the income for day to day passenger travel is coming from subsidy, a total of £11.9b.
So what is the purpose of bringing in the 9.30am start time, if it were to be brought in, is to reduce this subsidy? (If not it then just feels like sour grapes, as I can see no other logical reason)
If the point is to reduce the subsidy then I can assure those in their ivory towers that it will be counter productive, I will make less journeys, or look at alternative modes of transport, so the net result will be less income not more, and I suspect that I will be one of many.
I actually think this is part of a wider issue with the whole fares and ticketing structure.
So £300/year (288 by DD). Sounds like a good deal for the passenger to me!
Let's say someone is commuting 1 day a week from Basingstoke to London. The London Terminals anytime day return is £54.60. 52 of those a year is £2839 (yes there are holidays, but there will probably also be as hoc extra days on the office), so to be revenue neutral the discount would need to be 10%. You'd probably need to do at least 20% to sell any, so the railway would end up £300 out of pocket (and the passenger would end up in "profit" by the same).
Colchester to Liverpool Street is £70.30 for an anytime day return, so the revenue neutral discount would be about 8%.
How much extra demand would the Railcard create? How many people have that kind of travel pattern? I don't know, but that's the balance to find.
Because if we get rid of premium fares for those travelling out of necessity and thus willing to pay more, the effect is higher fares for those travelling for leisure who might as a result switch to the car.
(You could also add subsidy, but anyone who thinks that's on the agenda in England is frankly up there with the birds )
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. It's assuming that the fares system has to generate a fixed amount of money and the question is to distribute this cost amongst passengers.
Obviously the "fairest" way of doing this is equally (even if this means people able to pay more don't I would rather charge them more tax than try to get more money from them in fares).
But also I disagree with the premise. Changing fares and changing service changes the number of journeys made which changes both fares income and overall tax income (does anyone remember the concept of economic growth in this country anymore). So the amount to be raised doesn't have to be fixed. I agree this means the "subsidy" numbers might go up but that doesn't mean the government actually has to borrow more or tax more.
Perhaps this is more speculative than the rest of the thread!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.railforums.co.uk
)