Railcard use before 0930 - what would a fair solution be?

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps this is more speculative than the rest of the thread!

It's certainly fanciful. Apart from major projects like the Liz (and exclusively in London, pretty much), rail's effect on economic growth is absolutely tiny. Thus any such subsidy increase would certainly not be recouped.

Thus I don't think anything that is substantially revenue negative has any chance.

 

[Polarbear]

Apart from major projects like the Liz (and exclusively in London, pretty much), rail's effect on economic growth is absolutely tiny. Thus any such subsidy increase would certainly not be recouped.

Thus I don't think anything that is substantially revenue negative has any chance.

That being the case, one has to ask why a national 09:30 bar is even being considered for railcard use?

I understand that any such move is likely driven by DfT/Treasury considerations, but if the economic impact of rail outside the south east is minimal, moves to curtail peak use away from that area are not likely to generate large revenue gains either.

I’ve stated elsewhere that should such a restriction be introduced on Senior Railcards, I’ll simply not renew & will probably cease using UK rail. That point should be driven home very firmly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That being the case, one has to ask why a national 09:30 bar is even being considered for railcard use?

I understand that any such move is likely driven by DfT/Treasury considerations, but if the economic impact of rail outside the south east is minimal, moves to curtail peak use away from that area are not likely to generate large revenue gains either.

"Impact on the economy widely" != "impact on railway finances and subsidies".

The point is that increased rail subsidy is typically very poor value indeed when compared to other forms of spending, such as on the NHS (to get more people working) or on bus services (because you can get a lot more people able to access work for the same amount of money).

The goal, like it or not, is to cut subsidy. This will be calculated to do so.

I’ve stated elsewhere that should such a restriction be introduced on Senior Railcards, I’ll simply not renew & will probably cease using UK rail. That point should be driven home very firmly.

It's quite possible that the savings from rich Boomers using the Railcards while still working and easily able to afford to commute three days a week on Anytime fares will exceed the losses from you no longer making a few leisure journeys. This will be calculated, it won't be a guess - the survey will be an input to that calculation. If the outcome of the calculation is that it won't be of economic benefit, it won't happen - but overall it probably will be by reducing subsidy. And being able to line up Railcard conditions (if that is why) would be a genuine and welcome simplification even if there are losers.

 

[Polarbear]

Deleted

 

[Manutd1999]

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.

I've had a similar simplification idea before - replace all season tickets with a more expensive railcard (say £100/month) which is available to anyone and gives a 1/3 discount on all fares. It could be priced to more-or-less compensate for current discounts offered by season tickets but would provide much more flexibility and simplicity.

Similarly, existing railcards would be merged into a single "concession" card, still offering 1/3 discounts but sold much cheaper for eligible groups (pensioners, disabled, under 25s etc.). Perhaps this could remain limited to off-peak times. Family railcards would be scrapped and replaced with a universal "kids for a quid" type scheme.

 

[Farnborough]

"Not before 0930" is not complicated. Standardising on that across the Railcard portfolio would be perfectly reasonable and a genuine simplification.

Consider the 1T26 Portsmouth Harbour service to London Waterloo via the SWML.

Amongst other stops, it calls at Fleet (departing at 09:27) and Farnborough (departing at 09:32) - I can use my Railcard from Farnborough but not from Fleet.

 

[Zomboid]

Consider the 1T26 Portsmouth Harbour service to London Waterloo via the SWML.

Amongst other stops, it calls at Fleet (departing at 09:27) and Farnborough (departing at 09:32) - I can use my Railcard from Farnborough but not from Fleet.

There will be loads of those scenarios around the country. When is the next train from Fleet? Presumably before 10, so is it a huge hardship?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

There will be loads of those scenarios around the country. When is the next train from Fleet? Presumably before 10, so is it a huge hardship?

Next train from Fleet to London Waterloo (after 0927) is at 0940.

 

[HSTEd]

Consider the 1T26 Portsmouth Harbour service to London Waterloo via the SWML.

Amongst other stops, it calls at Fleet (departing at 09:27) and Farnborough (departing at 09:32) - I can use my Railcard from Farnborough but not from Fleet.

Assuming we move to single leg pricing, we can use a booking engine programmed to spit out an undiscounted ticket from Fleet to Farnborough, then the concession fare from Farnborough to the destination.

£22.10 direct to London, undiscounted.
£4.20 Fleet to Farnborough, £22.00*(2/3rds) from Farnborough to London - total of £18.87

Still a discount of ~15%

Single leg pricing appears to offer many opportunities to harness the arrival of automated split ticketing to simplify the fare structure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming we move to single leg pricing, we can use a booking engine programmed to spit out an undiscounted ticket from Fleet to Farnborough, then the concession fare from Farnborough to the destination.

£22.10 direct to London, undiscounted.
£4.20 Fleet to Farnborough, £22.00*(2/3rds) from Farnborough to London - total of £18.87

Still a discount of ~15%

Single leg pricing appears to offer many opportunities to harness the arrival of automated split ticketing to simplify the fare structure.

I seem to recall that Deutsche Bahn, when talking of Laender-Tickets which used to have peak restrictions, explicitly instructed you to do that to fill the gap if travelling partly in the peak. They of course have had single leg pricing since forever - the whole thing about returns costing almost nothing more than singles is a curiously British thing when it comes to railways (though most legacy airlines are at it).

In most cases it would be better to fill the gap with Advances and splits than it would be to complicate a super simple "0930 or later" restriction on Railcards and walk up off peak fares with a load of random exemptions. Those talking of the Far North Line and the likes would probably note that ScotRail don't price any off peak fares any more anyway. (OK, technically they do, but they cost the same as Anytime).

Indeed to be honest I agree with your point about splitting - it should be the standard and perhaps even required for accreditation - that way you stop needing to worry about aligning Advance quotas between trains. Just calculate the fare based on a split and issue it on a single train-specific Advance ticket.

 

[davews]

If the NSE area off peak requirement stays then we senior railcard holders may have the 'not before 0930' forced on us when they expand Project Oval contactless to our station. As others have said it would restrict my use of the card significantly for day trips.

 

[mike57]

Some thoughts onthe various responses to this discussion which really head off into areas which are off the OP topic..:

• The whole ticketing and fares structure is far too complex, and everytime you tinker with it you add further complexity, loopholes, winners and losers, but just make things worse. The existing fares structure need wiping, and a rewrite from scratch, probably distance + route based with some minor tweaks to avoid unwanted effects, i.e. some routes are cheaper than others, but then distance based. Outcome should be revenue neutral, yes there will still be winners and losers, but at least you will start from a simple base.
• Railcards should offer discount on all fares and should in general be useable at all times, Any changes should be based on the annual cost of the railcard. It might then be worth offering a generic offpeak railcard to anyone, based at a cost similar to the existing two together card.
• Based on the fact that almost 50% of railway revenue comes from taxpayer subsidy I would like to see a change of mind set from a 'commercial' to public service, i.e. how can we offer the best service from the revenue/subsidy we have. If an incoming government decided the railways were a lost cause and subsidies were to be massively cut or removed the network would shrink almost to the point of disappearing. I realise the treasury/DfT are pulling all the strings, but I would like to see a more hands off approach. Performance is perhaps better judged by passenger miles per £ subsidy... Messing around with things like railcard start times would I suspect then seem a lot less important.

 

[Farnborough]

Assuming we move to single leg pricing, we can use a booking engine programmed to spit out an undiscounted ticket from Fleet to Farnborough, then the concession fare from Farnborough to the destination.

That's a big assumption...

And automated split ticketing seems a curious way of simplification?!

 

[JonathanH]

That's a big assumption...

I'm not sure that a move towards single leg pricing is a big assumption. It is something that has been expanding, and seems to be the direction of travel. Certainly consistent with what RDG proposed in its 'fairer fares for all' paper in 2019, and with Project Oval and the LNER changes. Just really the question as to how to make one of those two approaches work for medium distance travel.

How far can PAYG with 'simple' morning and afternoon peak pricing be stretched, and what is the minimum distance for which an advance / anytime only model can apply? Offering railcard discounts only at off-peak times would be consistent with how Oyster is structured for example.

Based on the fact that almost 50% of railway revenue comes from taxpayer subsidy I would like to see a change of mind set from a 'commercial' to public service, i.e. how can we offer the best service from the revenue/subsidy we have.

I suspect that the 'how can we offer the best service from the revenue/subsidy we have' question is exactly what the DfT is grappling with in considering its changes. That is absolutely a commercial consideration.

 

[yorkie]

You also don't want long distance business travellers using one, though.

If they're a leisure product I can't see an issue with a flat "not before 0930" to be honest. It's simple and clear.

I'm on a very quiet train to from York to Manchester; it has some passengers on it who don't look like "business travellers". Do you really think it's sensible to force all those passengers onto post-0930 departures, which are typically rammed on this route?

The point is that increased rail subsidy is typically very poor value indeed when compared to other forms of spending, such as on the NHS (to get more people working) or on bus services (because you can get a lot more people able to access work for the same amount of money).

This is not only a false dichotomy, but I believe your NHS claims are fundamentally wrong, but not for discussion on this thread. I suggest you make your claim in General Discussion, where I'll be able to disagree with you without continuing any off-topic discussion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm on a very quiet train to from York to Manchester; it has some passengers on it who don't look like "business travellers". Do you really think it's sensible to force all those passengers onto post-0930 departures, which are typically rammed on this route?

Are all of those passengers Railcard holders? If not, they could be encouraged onto quieter trains by way of good value Advance fares. Even some Railcard holders may be if they're cheap enough!

However, it's quite likely that, as per morning peak Avanti services, the train is deliberately quiet, on the basis that more revenue is obtained from one person paying £300 than five people paying £50 each. A bar on Railcards before 0930 certainly supports this model which appears to be favoured by the DfT/Treasury and has been for many years.

This is not only a false dichotomy, but I believe your NHS claims are fundamentally wrong, but not for discussion on this thread. I suggest you make your claim in General Discussion, where I'll be able to disagree with you without continuing any off-topic discussion.

Done!

Spending tax money - good and bad value?

On the Railcard thread I allude to the principle that for the economy rail subsidy may not always be the best value. My suspicion, though not proven, is along these lines: Capital subsidy for major projects like the Elizabeth Line probably is good value in terms of promoting economic growth by...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HSTEd]

That's a big assumption...

And automated split ticketing seems a curious way of simplification?!

Automated split ticketing allows radical fare simplification as we no longer have to provide separate fares for all possible journeys via all independently priced routes.

It slashes the number of different fares that must be maintained.

And we can do it without that much lost revenue because people are increasingly already splitting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Automated split ticketing allows radical fare simplification as we no longer have to provide separate fares for all possible journeys via all independently priced routes.

It slashes the number of different fares that must be maintained.

And we can do it without that much lost revenue because people are increasingly already splitting.

I've done a new thread on that: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fare-simplification-should-splitting-be-the-norm.303021/

 

[martin butler]

What about if your jouney is against the main flow, ie away from major towns cities, then could off peak hours be changed, ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about if your jouney is against the main flow, ie away from major towns cities, then could off peak hours be changed, ?

Things like that can be done, but the more of them you have the less you are actually simplifying fares.

 

[JonathanH]

What about if your jouney is against the main flow, ie away from major towns cities, then could off peak hours be changed, ?

The way it has been done elsewhere is to have peak fares on those flows in the morning but not the afternoon.

The Oval approach to peak fares isn't perfect. For example, it isn't obvious why a journey from Watford to Hemel Hempstead should be charged at a higher rate between 4pm and 7pm than a Hemel Hempstead to Watford one. However, it is implemented with a 'simple' set of rules as its framework.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way it has been done elsewhere is to have peak fares on those flows in the morning but not the afternoon.

The Oval approach to peak fares isn't perfect. For example, it isn't obvious why a journey from Watford to Hemel Hempstead should be charged at a higher rate between 4pm and 7pm than a Hemel Hempstead to Watford one. However, it is implemented with a 'simple' set of rules as its framework.

I think that is really the nub of the issue. We can have simple fares which have some unfair situations but are an approximation of fairness, or we can have complex fares which try to apply a long set of rules and exceptions to ensure everything is fair. We cannot have both.

 

[blimmo]

Tbh I don't think many people understand this. If they were actually offered this rather than just a promise of simpler fares with no losers I'm not sure there would be as much support as there is now. The British public care a lot about fairness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tbh I don't think many people understand this. If they were actually offered this rather than just a promise of simpler fares with no losers I'm not sure there would be as much support as there is now. The British public care a lot about fairness.

There does not exist any fare change that doesn't have losers. Even making every fare £1 would have losers - the taxpayer.

 

[blimmo]

There does not exist any fare change that doesn't have losers. Even making every fare £1 would have losers - the taxpayer.

Indeed but I don't think this is widely understood.

 

[Hadders]

The whole ticketing and fares structure is far too complex, and everytime you tinker with it you add further complexity, loopholes, winners and losers, but just make things worse. The existing fares structure need wiping, and a rewrite from scratch, probably distance + route based with some minor tweaks to avoid unwanted effects, i.e. some routes are cheaper than others, but then distance based. Outcome should be revenue neutral, yes there will still be winners and losers, but at least you will start from a simple base.

This sounds rather complex. I wonder if you could give some examples to help me to understand what you're proposing?

Would Reading to Paddington be a similar price as Penzance to Truro?

How much would it cost to travel rom York to Whitby for a day return, avoiding Darlington, and will the fare be competetive with the coach service provided by Coastliner that costs only slightly more than the current rail ticket price but offers a shorter journey time?

How much would it cost to travel rom York to Whitby for a day return, avoiding Darlington, and will the fare be competetive with the coach service provided by Coastliner that costs only slightly more than the current rail ticket price but offers a shorter journey time?

 

[yorksrob]

This sounds rather complex. I wonder if you could give some examples to help me to understand what you're proposing?

Would Reading to Paddington be a similar price as Penzance to Truro?

How much would it cost to travel rom York to Whitby for a day return, avoiding Darlington, and will the fare be competetive with the coach service provided by Coastliner that costs only slightly more than the current rail ticket price but offers a shorter journey time?

How much would it cost to travel rom York to Whitby for a day return, avoiding Darlington, and will the fare be competetive with the coach service provided by Coastliner that costs only slightly more than the current rail ticket price but offers a shorter journey time?

That's an interesting point about Whitby.

Currently one can buy an off-peak from Leeds to Whitby leaving Leeds at 18:13. However, due to the inadequate timetable on the line, this is the latest service one can catch to get there at around mid day. Also, there isn't a day return, so one must pay a whopping £56 for a period.

There would be no justification for disallowing railcard discounts on this extortionate journey, particularly as the supposedly main line leg of the journey between Leeds and Middlesbrough is far from overwhelmed in terms of capacity.

 

[yorkie]

Are all of those passengers Railcard holders? If not, they could be encouraged onto quieter trains by way of good value Advance fares. Even some Railcard holders may be if they're cheap enough!

The quieter trains on this route are either early morning (peak) or too late for some people.

However, it's quite likely that, as per morning peak Avanti services, the train is deliberately quiet, on the basis that more revenue is obtained from one person paying £300 than five people paying £50 each. A bar on Railcards before 0930 certainly supports this model which appears to be favoured by the DfT/Treasury and has been for many years.

Indeed, the current industry approach is absolutely on maximising the amount of money charged at every opportunity. If there is no plan to reform that, there is no point reforming the fares themselves.

Some thoughts onthe various responses to this discussion which really head off into areas which are off the OP topic..:

• The whole ticketing and fares structure is far too complex, and everytime you tinker with it you add further complexity, loopholes, winners and losers, but just make things worse. The existing fares structure need wiping, and a rewrite from scratch, probably distance + route based with some minor tweaks to avoid unwanted effects, i.e. some routes are cheaper than others, but then distance based. Outcome should be revenue neutral, yes there will still be winners and losers, but at least you will start from a simple base.

What would the cost per mile be?

Would this not risk overcrowding on some routes and pricing people off others?

Would it be politically acceptable?

Have any railways in Europe gone away from a market based model towards distance pricing? (I think it's been more the other way round but I am happy to be corrected...)

• Railcards should offer discount on all fares and should in general be useable at all times, Any changes should be based on the annual cost of the railcard. It might then be worth offering a generic offpeak railcard to anyone, based at a cost similar to the existing two together card.

Agreed in principle, but it may be seen as unaffordable

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, the current industry approach is absolutely on maximising the amount of money charged at every opportunity. If there is no plan to reform that, there is no point reforming the fares themselves.

I don't agree. If the choice is between revenue maximisation with simple, easily understandable fare rules, and revenue maximisation with complex fares, the former is vastly preferable.

This won't suit those on here because they will lose their "MoneySavingExpert style" ability to get good value by taking advantage of a deep knowledge of the complexity*, but it's much fairer if everyone gets the same level of value for money (however poor that might be) than if those with deep knowledge are able to get good value and those without it vastly poorer value.

* Noting that the LNER trial, while it removes flexiblity, creates more of these opportunities (e.g. booking a 70 Minute Flex on the wrong train) and more split anomalies - it doesn't remove them - thus it isn't a beneficial simplification for the general public!