My proposal for railcard reform under GBR

[yorksrob]

If the discount is 33%, it needs to generate 50% more travel to be revenue neutral. A price of £100 will simply favour people who are already predisposed to rail travel, yet still lose the railway revenue. How do you accommodate 50% more travellers on already busy trains with an offer which isn't targetted at using spare capacity?

In terms of revenue, the Network card doesn't seem to be causing negative issues in the South East. I wonder, does that generate 50% more revenue than would have been the case without it ?

 

[35B]

In terms of revenue, the Network card doesn't seem to be causing negative issues in the South East. I wonder, does that generate 50% more revenue than would have been the case without it ?

It's also structured with rules that limit the ability to use it in the morning peak and are designed to encourage use at marginal times. I'd be interested in what an analysis of usage now would show in terms of the financial gain/loss of using them, bearing in mind that a) the railcard price needs to be factored in to the net impact and b) many railcards are only used infrequently.

Back to the OP's suggestion, neither old nor new versions seem to factor in the principle of KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. While an accountant will tell me, rightly, that LNER Perks or Boots Advantage save me money, I don't feel that in my pocket when I make an individual purchase in the way that I do with a railcard. And "needs" railcards need to be simple and straightforward to access - not made into a further purchase by ordeal each time they're used.

Finally, a "poor persons railcard" (effectively what's being suggested around JobSeekers) would be bad policy, for the railway and as public policy. It would add to the existing fraud problem with those railcards by making them more widespread, and the impact of losing them more severe, while at a public policy level, you'd be adding a further marginal cost to people when they pass a certain financial threshold - behaviour that is already recognised to cause people to limit their horizons and focus on what they have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's also structured with rules that limit the ability to use it in the morning peak and are designed to encourage use at marginal times. I'd be interested in what an analysis of usage now would show in terms of the financial gain/loss of using them, bearing in mind that a) the railcard price needs to be factored in to the net impact and b) many railcards are only used infrequently.

An interesting point with the Network Railcard is that "single in, discounted single back" represents far better value than flexi seasons and weeklies on medium length commutes now most routes around London are already or are heading for being single fare priced. I suspect the railway is watching this very carefully to see if it bleeds too much revenue as people work this out and in that case I'd be unsurprised to see it gaining an evening restriction. Hopefully it won't do this until I become entitled to a Senior card

This is in part because the minimum fare has never been increased, I suppose - £13 when it came in (must be heading for 20 years ago?) is probably equivalent to well over £20 now, at which point this wouldn't be good value on most routes.

 

[35B]

An interesting point with the Network Railcard is that "single in, discounted single back" represents far better value than flexi seasons and weeklies on medium length commutes now most routes around London are already or are heading for being single fare priced. I suspect the railway is watching this very carefully to see if it bleeds too much revenue as people work this out and in that case I'd be unsurprised to see it gaining an evening restriction. Hopefully it won't do this until I become entitled to a Senior card

This is in part because the minimum fare has never been increased, I suppose - £13 when it came in (must be heading for 20 years ago?) is probably equivalent to well over £20 now, at which point this wouldn't be good value on most routes.

Quite. Which is why I fear that @yorksrob may be taking an optimistic perspective on the status of the Network Card, and consider that real data is necessary.

 

[yorksrob]

It's also structured with rules that limit the ability to use it in the morning peak and are designed to encourage use at marginal times. I'd be interested in what an analysis of usage now would show in terms of the financial gain/loss of using them, bearing in mind that a) the railcard price needs to be factored in to the net impact and b) many railcards are only used infrequently.

Back to the OP's suggestion, neither old nor new versions seem to factor in the principle of KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. While an accountant will tell me, rightly, that LNER Perks or Boots Advantage save me money, I don't feel that in my pocket when I make an individual purchase in the way that I do with a railcard. And "needs" railcards need to be simple and straightforward to access - not made into a further purchase by ordeal each time they're used.

Finally, a "poor persons railcard" (effectively what's being suggested around JobSeekers) would be bad policy, for the railway and as public policy. It would add to the existing fraud problem with those railcards by making them more widespread, and the impact of losing them more severe, while at a public policy level, you'd be adding a further marginal cost to people when they pass a certain financial threshold - behaviour that is already recognised to cause people to limit their horizons and focus on what they have.

To be fair, I would fully expect a national railcard available to all to have a morning restriction (evening restrictions present too much of a barrier and are against the philosophy of KISS as you say).

As you mention, there is something tangible about getting a railcard discount at the time of purchase and they provide an income stream to the railway in themselves, which is a bonus.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2026 ==

An interesting point with the Network Railcard is that "single in, discounted single back" represents far better value than flexi seasons and weeklies on medium length commutes now most routes around London are already or are heading for being single fare priced. I suspect the railway is watching this very carefully to see if it bleeds too much revenue as people work this out and in that case I'd be unsurprised to see it gaining an evening restriction. Hopefully it won't do this until I become entitled to a Senior card

This is in part because the minimum fare has never been increased, I suppose - £13 when it came in (must be heading for 20 years ago?) is probably equivalent to well over £20 now, at which point this wouldn't be good value on most routes.

Quite. Which is why I fear that @yorksrob may be taking an optimistic perspective on the status of the Network Card, and consider that real data is necessary.

Fares around London are already pretty eye watering and watering down the Network Railcard would make the railway even more of a rich man's toy.

The minimum fare seems pretty onerous as it is, however hiking it to £20 would make it more or less pointless for local journeys such as within Kent and Sussex.

 

[35B]

Fares around London are already pretty eye watering and watering down the Network Railcard would make the railway even more of a rich man's toy.

The minimum fare seems pretty onerous as it is, however hiking it to £20 would make it more or less pointless for local journeys such as within Kent and Sussex.

My point was not that minimum fares should rise, or that the railcard should be "watered down". It was that, to assess the impact of this railcard on the bottom line of the railway, real rather than anecdotal data is required.

If it is leading to a net reduction in fare revenue compared with not being present, then it is economically irrational to maintain it - which would also apply to any hypothetical national railcard. If it instead drives additional revenue, especially to counter-peak services, then it is serving a clear economic purpose. In the middle is a space where it's a bit "meh" on revenue, but is making more people more invested in the existence and usability of the railway.

What you or I as atypical customers might think of that outcome is probably a misleading view of the market as a whole

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Really GBR needs to simplify tickets, and rail cards are a massive example of complication. I would reduce all tickets (that rail cards can be used on) by 15-20% and abolish all rail cards. Much simpler. Sure some people now have to pay more, but others pay less making things fairer across the board. And simplifying fares is not the same as cheaper fares.

Combine this with a simplification of ticket types and the whole system would be much easier for normals to understand. Ticket types:
*Restricted (basically an advance ticket but renamed for clarity)
*Anytime single (half price of a current return)
*Off peak single
*Unlimited week/month/year

Child versions of the above too

This would also make contactless payments much easier to introduce nationally over time

Railcards are not a massive example of complications they are independent of the fare structure. The railcards just permit a discount from a current fare.

You can have just one set of fares if you want simplicity. Railcards just sit above the available fares.

 

[81A]

Thanks everyone! Lots of interesting comments here so far. Many of them have highlighted a key issue with my scheme (and all attempts at ticketing reform) which is that most simple schemes will either a) cost the Treasury/taxpayer too much or b) cost passengers too much, while attempts to solve these problems will often end up being more complicated than the current system (which I hardly thought possible ).

 

[yorksrob]

My point was not that minimum fares should rise, or that the railcard should be "watered down". It was that, to assess the impact of this railcard on the bottom line of the railway, real rather than anecdotal data is required.

If it is leading to a net reduction in fare revenue compared with not being present, then it is economically irrational to maintain it - which would also apply to any hypothetical national railcard. If it instead drives additional revenue, especially to counter-peak services, then it is serving a clear economic purpose. In the middle is a space where it's a bit "meh" on revenue, but is making more people more invested in the existence and usability of the railway.

What you or I as atypical customers might think of that outcome is probably a misleading view of the market as a whole

We have the preposterous fares trial on LNER, and I've heard rumours of good value fares being for the chop elsewhere on the railway. If GBR just ends up as an excuse to get rid of decent value fares such as those offered by the Network card, it will be a huge political failure.

 

[Skymonster]

it also seems very unlikely that the legislation that protects the senior railcard is going to be changed.

I sincerely hope that’s the case - as it seems there are quite a few people on this forum who have it in for the Senior Railcard.

I may well be an edge-case but changes to the terms and conditions associated with the Senior Railcard would impact my travel habits and some of the things I now choose to do in life:

• I am over 60 but not yet at national retirement age and thus do not qualify for ENCTS
• I no longer work (my choosing) and while I am not as well-to-do as I was I am financially OK
• I volunteer as a driver / inspector at a heritage rail site at least twice a week, sometimes four or more times a week
• We have one car at home which my partner needs more than me, and thus I use the national rail network to get to and from my unpaid role
• That role requires signing on before the morning peak is over so I cannot use off-peak rail tickets
• The Senior Railcard discount makes the cost of the rail tickets justifiable. Sould the railcard be withdrawn, offer a materially lesser discount or have greater restrictions applied to it, then I would have to seriously review and probably reduce my volunteering commitment

Look, I don’t expect GBR, the DfT or the Government to care about the problems it causes me or the organisation I choose to freely give my time to. But amidst the snarky comments here about Senior Railcards and their holders being able to afford full fares or being made to travel off-peak only, please recognise that there are some people - like me - who could be adversely affected by the sort of changes being suggested here. The truth is that (a) I spend far more on rail travel now than I would if the Senior Railcard was withdrawn or downgraded and (b) I have never travelled on a train that was so full I was denying a full-fare payer a place to sit or stand, so my Senior Railcard in its current form is very much a plus for the railway’s revenue take.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I sincerely hope that’s the case - as it seems there are quite a few people on this forum who have it in for the Senior Railcard.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that those of us who favour a single set of Railcard T&Cs have it in for the Senior cardholders in the sense you imply. We just think the "collateral damage" is worthwhile for the simplicity of just having one set of T&Cs across all Railcards (and thus one button to select for a Railcard online and at a TVM) just with two price points, a lower one for the "demographic" Railcards and a higher one for an "any adult" card.

It is generally not possible to do any kind of fare simplification without there being losers. However we win overall if "the man on the street" can easily understand fares and associated discounts.

 

[Skymonster]

I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that those of us who favour a single set of Railcard T&Cs have it in for the Senior cardholders in the sense you imply.

Maybe not in this topic, but certainly on the forum recently there has been sentiment to the effect that Senior Railcard holders - especially those aged between 60 and national retirement age - are either still in employment and thus can afford to pay / should pay the full [peak] fare, or have retired early on a private pension, are well off and thus can also afford to pay the full fare. I suggest that two-sizes do not fit all.

However we win overall if "the man on the street" can easily understand fares and associated discounts.

No, fare simplification will penalise those who are prepared to do a bit of research and leg work, and will reward those who assume everything will be handed to them on a plate. These days most people shop around to get the best deals for products and services - a task made much simpler with the Internet - and yet for inexplicable reasons many seem to be unwilling or incapable of working out how to pay the least for rail travel.

 

[35B]

We have the preposterous fares trial on LNER, and I've heard rumours of good value fares being for the chop elsewhere on the railway. If GBR just ends up as an excuse to get rid of decent value fares such as those offered by the Network card, it will be a huge political failure.

No, fare simplification will penalise those who are prepared to do a bit of research and leg work, and will reward those who assume everything will be handed to them on a plate. These days most people shop around to get the best deals for products and services - a task made much simpler with the Internet - and yet for inexplicable reasons many seem to be unwilling or incapable of working out how to pay the least for rail travel.

Two interestingly contrasting views of what good looks like - and therefore a demonstration of the near impossibility of crafting a satisfactory middle way.

I suggest the truth lies in the middle. People do see fares as high (ultimately a political question about subsidy levels), but also consider the fare system too complex and full of traps. Balancing those is the key challenge - which requires honesty over objectives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, fare simplification will penalise those who are prepared to do a bit of research and leg work, and will reward those who assume everything will be handed to them on a plate.

Good. This is a terrible argument.

The railway should be intuitive to use, and it should not be necessary to be some sort of MoneySavingExpert regular to be able to use it confidently and obtaining the best value every time.

The idea of business is to take peoples' money to hand them things on the proverbial plate. That's the whole point of it. If you want to put in effort to get somewhere, walk or cycle. Do you also think people should have to cook their own food in a restaurant? In a restaurant you literally pay to have things handed to you on a plate, that being the entire selling point of eating in a restaurant as opposed to cooking yourself.

Those on here love that they can obtain better value than the man on the street due to their expertise. This is not how a public railway should operate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

I suggest the truth lies in the middle. People do see fares as high (ultimately a political question about subsidy levels), but also consider the fare system too complex and full of traps. Balancing those is the key challenge - which requires honesty over objectives.

I certainly think all businesses should be honest with their customers at all times, the railway included. Including if they have to do bad things, e.g. put fares up or remove flexibility.

I cannot abide lies, toxic positivity and obfuscation, e.g. those which have emanated from the direction of a certain red TOC over a certain fares project. If you need to do something bad, explain it honestly, apologise and state why you have no realistic option but to do it.

Standardising Railcard T&Cs would be bad for some but the benefits would be clear in terms of understandability.

 

[Skymonster]

it should not be necessary to be some sort of MoneySavingExpert regular to be able to use it confidently and obtaining the best value every time.

Do you also think people should have to cook their own food in a restaurant?

The idea of business is to take peoples' money to hand them things on the proverbial plate.

I expect people to research restaurants. There’s no point in people going for a pizza at one place, then moaning that the same quality pizza was available down the road at a cheaper price but they weren’t aware of it. They should have done their research first. I certainly wouldn’t expect the expensive pizza place to warn their customers they can get the same quality nearby at a cheaper price.

The railway IS a business. Its reasonable to expect people to research fares to get the best deals. Split tickets is a prime example which no doubt the simplification proponents would like to be removed: its permitted but not actively promoted by the railway. More fool those who don’t research, don’t find splits, and thus pay more. Its not hard. The railway relies on public funding and I certainly wouldn’t want it to get more as a result of some fares being lowered just because some people can’t be bothered to work out how to get the cheapest tickets.

 

[martin butler]

I would scrap the various age-related railcards, and have just one railcard, valid nationally, across all operators, costs can be formalised on the age of the person applying, ie a child, would pay less than an adult, and have it as either recurring payment, set up as a direct debit, or automatic renewal so when the card expires, a new one is sent out automatically if you cancel it, it becomes invalid,

For people who are out of work etc, then it could be requested by the job centre, and when that person, re-enters work, they have to hand the card back, and its destroyed, or cancelled, so again, further use is invalid use, I would make them all carry an photo of the person the card is issued to

Pensioners etc, again cost is decided upon application, and like if you're on state benefits, such as state pension, on means tested etc, the price could be reduced, again it would have to be applied for from the pensions office,

All cards would give a 33 % discount and pensioners could include a voucher for a day return ticket to be used within 12 months, with certain restrictions.

 

[mr_jrt]

I appreciate it's a bit glib, but my personal opinion is that the railway serves a valuable-but-difficult-to-quantify social benefit, so the obsession over revenue is problematic, to say the least.

With that in mind, my proposal is simple. Ideally, reduce off-peak fares to the railcard discounted level (and ideally drop the ridiculous minimum fare).

If that's not a go-er, then merge all the railcards into either one national railcard that only applies to off-peak travel (or two, one as previous, with the other applying to peak travel as well), so instead of having various very similar cards with varying conditions, you apply the varying criteria at purchase time by adjusting the price of the railcard.

Jobseekers, Disabled, Veterans, Old Persons - free, or at least, very cheap (and would be the peak version in the two card option). Everyone else, something reasonable, and only off-peak. I guess you could offer both options with different price points to everybody if you really wanted?

 

[Skymonster]

my personal opinion is that the railway serves a valuable-but-difficult-to-quantify social benefit, so the obsession over revenue is problematic

If you believe that the railway serves a social benefit, changing the terms and conditions of railcards such that some holders have to pay more is also problematic.

In the real world, I suspect that at least some of those advocating changes to railcards which would disadvantage some holders are actually disenfranchised - do not have the right to hold one - and are thus taking their position primarily out of spite.

 

[yorksrob]

Two interestingly contrasting views of what good looks like - and therefore a demonstration of the near impossibility of crafting a satisfactory middle way.

I suggest the truth lies in the middle. People do see fares as high (ultimately a political question about subsidy levels), but also consider the fare system too complex and full of traps. Balancing those is the key challenge - which requires honesty over objectives.

I think that everything needs to be overlaid on a consistent base line fares system:

CDR's and peak returns's for reasonable day trips.
Off peak and anytime period returns for middle and longer distance. Singles should be near to half the cost of a return for these.

Local, AP and railcard offers on top of .these.

Too often you try and plan a journey - one leg's by a provider that doesn't do one type of fare the next that doesn't do another. There's too much inconsistency across the base offer, greatly exacerbated by LNER's fares trial which isn't compatible with anything around it.

Things like railcard discounts and cheap walk on fares as typified by the LNWR aren't particularly complicated or hidden from the view of the customer, which seems like a reasonable middle way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I expect people to research restaurants. There’s no point in people going for a pizza at one place, then moaning that the same quality pizza was available down the road at a cheaper price but they weren’t aware of it. They should have done their research first. I certainly wouldn’t expect the expensive pizza place to warn their customers they can get the same quality nearby at a cheaper price.

The railway IS a business. Its reasonable to expect people to research fares to get the best deals. Split tickets is a prime example which no doubt the simplification proponents would like to be removed: its permitted but not actively promoted by the railway. More fool those who don’t research, don’t find splits, and thus pay more. Its not hard. The railway relies on public funding and I certainly wouldn’t want it to get more as a result of some fares being lowered just because some people can’t be bothered to work out how to get the cheapest tickets.

These two paragraphs conflict. It is necessary for passengers to research whether it's best to go to their destination by coach, train, flight, whatever. Once they've decided rail (picked the restaurant) it's not appropriate that they deal with complexity to get a good price - restaurants will make their deals very clear and transparent on the menu.

As for splitting I don't want to see it banned but I do want to see the number of anomalies minimised so people can trust that whatever the retailer they choose they will get the best deal simply and quickly. A way to do this with regard to Advance fares was looked at a while back but not pursued. But that's for another thread.

Businesses that primarily profit through obfuscation are acting immorally and do not deserve to exist. Yes, you, Ryanair.

 

[yorksrob]

If you believe that the railway serves a social benefit, changing the terms and conditions of railcards such that some holders have to pay more is also problematic.

In the real world, I suspect that at least some of those advocating changes to railcards which would disadvantage some holders are actually disenfranchised - do not have the right to hold one - and are thus taking their position primarily out of spite.

I expect that for most of those of us who are "disenfranchised" in this way (I am one of those for the main part) the differing conditions for existing railcards are neither here nor there.

It's more the fact that unlike in most comparable countries, there are no such offers to easily obtain reasonably priced travel at all.

 

[Wolfie]

Edit-Thanks all, given the various issues, I have concluded the original proposals would almost certainly be too difficult and unpopular to implement (and not necessarily desirable anyway).

Spoiler: “original proposals”

As in the title, this is my proposal for the reform of railcards/discounts under GBR. Curious to hear everyone's opinions or counter proposals (and whether people even think these proposals are possible)!

1-introduce a "concessionary" railcard (limited/no restrictions-eligibility and discount level could be discussed)-could cover the Jobcentre Plus/disabled sort of cases, only for those *REALLY* in need of it.

2-introduce a group/family discount to replace Groupsave and the Two Together and Family Railcards (and the Family/group Advances some TOCs have)-giving 20% off for adults, 25% for youth (see below) and 35% for children, with minimum group size of 2 people (the youth/child discounts would be on top of the normal youth/child discount, as with the Family and Friends/Network currently).

3-amend child fares to be up to age 14 and introduce "youth" fares for 15-21 year olds (with ID requirement if needed), replacing the 16-17 and partially 16-25.
The child discount would remain 50% while the youth discount would be 35%.

4 (and the key item)-introduce a loyalty scheme which would work as follows:

Everyone would be able to sign up for free and earn 3 points per pound spent on *ALL* tickets (including seasons etc). Each point would be worth 1p (2p when redeemed on Advance/off-peak) and only valid for buying rail tickets.

Then, there would be "premium" plans available to buy. For example, double points for £20 a year, with options up to a maximum of 6x points at £110/year (not sure about these prices, studies could be carried out to determine the optimal price points). There would also be perks available for those collecting a lot of points per year (a bit like GW rewards; first lounge access, free upgrades, et cetera). There could also be special offers (the "5 extra points if you use an e ticket", "30 extra points if you spend £50 by a certain date" type thing supermarkets/airlines sometimes do).

Of course, there would be winners and losers (all age related and regional railcards would be scrapped), but the aim is to create an affordable (for the railway/taxpayer) and realistic scheme (whilst still expanding the availability of a discount/loyalty scheme to everyone), not an "ideal world where money grows on trees" type proposal.

Anyways, as above I am interested to hear whether people think this is a) realistic, b) affordable for the railway and c) popular enough with the public to get through.

I have come up with an amended set of proposals that attempt to address some of the issues with the original scheme (while still keeping many of the key ideas).

New proposals:
1) introduce a concessionary railcard (as in the first proposal) giving a 40% discount on standard class fares with no time restrictions-available to most/all current disabled, veterans, HM forces and Jobcentre railcard holders. Also available to those who cannot afford rail travel and need to use it to get to work/education/health care/shopping (and cannot easily walk/bus to these facilities).

2) introduce a national leisure railcard giving a 30% discount for up to 2 adults and 50% (on top of the child discount) for up to 4 accompanying children. Only valid on advance and off-peak tickets in standard class. The railcard would cost £90 per year. There would be two named card holders, and both of them could use the railcard by themselves (or accompanied by others, within the max 2 adults and 4 children).

3) make child fares apply through age 18 at the current discount of 50%. To pay these fares, a photocard would be mandatory for children over 15 (stopping most 19/20 year olds “trying it on”).

4) introduce a 10% young persons discount for everyone aged 19-25. Also introduce a 10% elderly discount for those age 70+. These (and the child discount) would be available to those of an eligible age at anytime (subject to obtaining a free photocard in the cases where people are likely to falsely claim the discount).

5) introduce a loyalty scheme giving 5 points per pound spent. Each point would be worth 1p (2p when used on advance/off-peak tickets). There would also be perks for those earning a large number of points per year (first class lounge access, free first class upgrades, et cetera). This would be free to sign up for.

Note-the only combination not allowed would be using both railcards (concessionary and leisure) on one ticket. All other combinations would be allowed. So, for example, a 71 year old could buy a leisure railcard and get their standard 10% off, the 30% railcard discount on top of that and earn loyalty points as well.

Again, interested to hear everyone’s thoughts/counter proposals (and whether people think these updated proposals would be affordable for the railway and popular enough to get through)!

The group being hit most heavily by your proposals are non-disabled seniors. Having raised their own children you now expect them to massively subside other people's. They also happen to be the group most likely to vote which makes your proposal political anathema.

 

[yorksrob]

The GB rail system is an overpriced shambles, however it would be difficult to unpick all of the inconsistencies and anomalies that have built up during the privatised era (and frankly I wouldn't trust them to do it to the benefit of passengers anyway).

The easiest way to heal the running sore of poor value train travel for working age people outside of the South East would be a national railcard.

The railcard infrastructure to administer it already exists. It comes with its own revenue stream on top of fares.

It might cost more in subsidy, but given the poor optics of being out of kilter with the rest of Europe and having working age residents in lower income areas of the country comparatively discriminated against, the Establishment probably ought to just suck it up and introduce one.

 

[blimmo]

The group being hit most heavily by your proposals are non-disabled seniors. Having raised their own children you now expect them to massively subside other people's. They also happen to be the group most likely to vote which makes your proposal political anathema.

I'm afraid with the triple lock, home ownership distribution, and the state of the housing market I can't find too much sympathy for non-disabled seniors.

I expect people to research restaurants. There’s no point in people going for a pizza at one place, then moaning that the same quality pizza was available down the road at a cheaper price but they weren’t aware of it. They should have done their research first. I certainly wouldn’t expect the expensive pizza place to warn their customers they can get the same quality nearby at a cheaper price.

The railway IS a business. Its reasonable to expect people to research fares to get the best deals. Split tickets is a prime example which no doubt the simplification proponents would like to be removed: its permitted but not actively promoted by the railway. More fool those who don’t research, don’t find splits, and thus pay more. Its not hard. The railway relies on public funding and I certainly wouldn’t want it to get more as a result of some fares being lowered just because some people can’t be bothered to work out how to get the cheapest tickets.

The difference in your examples is that the product you are getting at the different restaurants is not the same: they are selling you two different pizzas. On the railway if you go to a ticket office and ask for a ticket from A to B you will be sold a ticket that likely has strictly less validity than a cheaper combination of tickets. I agree with @Bletchleyite that this is dishonest.

 

[35B]

I think that everything needs to be overlaid on a consistent base line fares system:

CDR's and peak returns's for reasonable day trips.
Off peak and anytime period returns for middle and longer distance. Singles should be near to half the cost of a return for these.

Local, AP and railcard offers on top of .these.

Too often you try and plan a journey - one leg's by a provider that doesn't do one type of fare the next that doesn't do another. There's too much inconsistency across the base offer, greatly exacerbated by LNER's fares trial which isn't compatible with anything around it.

Things like railcard discounts and cheap walk on fares as typified by the LNWR aren't particularly complicated or hidden from the view of the customer, which seems like a reasonable middle way.

I tend to agree, though if I were doing the job, I'd include an absolute ban on any term used in public facing ticket retailing in the last 30 years (and especially "Open Return"!).

I expect people to research restaurants. There’s no point in people going for a pizza at one place, then moaning that the same quality pizza was available down the road at a cheaper price but they weren’t aware of it. They should have done their research first. I certainly wouldn’t expect the expensive pizza place to warn their customers they can get the same quality nearby at a cheaper price.

The railway IS a business. Its reasonable to expect people to research fares to get the best deals. Split tickets is a prime example which no doubt the simplification proponents would like to be removed: its permitted but not actively promoted by the railway. More fool those who don’t research, don’t find splits, and thus pay more. Its not hard. The railway relies on public funding and I certainly wouldn’t want it to get more as a result of some fares being lowered just because some people can’t be bothered to work out how to get the cheapest tickets.

To some extent, I agree - the railway gets a bad reputation compared to airlines, yet rail fares are no more complex (and frequently more transparent). However, I'm minded to consider my car buying habits - I've bought from Japanese makers because the products and pricing are really simple, and left salesmen for European manufacturers disappointed because I really can't be bothered to wade through the permutations. Businesses will sell well when people believe that they're getting a fair deal, and deter when people are afraid they're not.

 

[Farigiraf]

Many of them have highlighted a key issue with my scheme (and all attempts at ticketing reform) which is that most simple schemes will either a) cost the Treasury/taxpayer too much or b) cost passengers too much, while attempts to solve these problems will often end up being more complicated than the current system (which I hardly thought possible ).

In most cases the passenger is also the taxpayer, so we're still paying for it, the question is which point of payment would be less politically unpopular. While there's still a large lobby of people who believe any increase in tax is taking money from already disadvantaged people, and investing in rail is starting a war on the motorist, you can't really do much to improve upon things without just shifting the 'losers' of any scheme from one group of travellers to another.

Look, I don’t expect GBR, the DfT or the Government to care about the problems it causes me or the organisation I choose to freely give my time to. But amidst the snarky comments here about Senior Railcards and their holders being able to afford full fares or being made to travel off-peak only, please recognise that there are some people - like me - who could be adversely affected by the sort of changes being suggested here. The truth is that (a) I spend far more on rail travel now than I would if the Senior Railcard was withdrawn or downgraded and (b) I have never travelled on a train that was so full I was denying a full-fare payer a place to sit or stand, so my Senior Railcard in its current form is very much a plus for the railway’s revenue take.

I don't think this issue is exclusive to seniors. Anywhere that you cut a form of welfare or subsidy, under the assumption that 'most people can live without it anyway', you'll find out that many people can't in fact continue living their life as they do without it, for the better or worse (in most cases it's for the worse). In reality the fairest railcard scheme would be one that ensures everybody gets good value, not just a select few groups (young adults, seniors, people with disabilities), but for that you'd need a lot more capacity on the railway and much higher subsidies. Both of these are needed for rail growth but it's not easy to make it happen.

Good. This is a terrible argument.

The railway should be intuitive to use, and it should not be necessary to be some sort of MoneySavingExpert regular to be able to use it confidently and obtaining the best value every time.

The idea of business is to take peoples' money to hand them things on the proverbial plate. That's the whole point of it. If you want to put in effort to get somewhere, walk or cycle. Do you also think people should have to cook their own food in a restaurant? In a restaurant you literally pay to have things handed to you on a plate, that being the entire selling point of eating in a restaurant as opposed to cooking yourself.

Those on here love that they can obtain better value than the man on the street due to their expertise. This is not how a public railway should operate.

I agree 100%. A lot of the time, the time it takes to learn all the saving tricks outweighs the amount you save. I'd happily pay a little more for train tickets (for the same levels of flexibility) if it meant that I didn't need to spend 20-30 mins figuring out the best splits and peak/off-peak/super off-peak/ranger/advance combinations for each journey. But any more than 'a little more', e.g. max 15% extra, and passengers like me will stick to researching the best fare.

It's a huge waste of time, and while knowing that I'm saving considerable amounts of money through using a niche ticket option is a nice feeling, knowing that my fellow passengers might be paying up to double for the same journey isn't. For example, I've previously gone down to London on weekends with friends who unknowingly paid the full Anytime return fare + paid for the tube with oyster, while I got a railcard discounted Super off-peak travelcard. It's what Trainline offered to them, so they bought it - Trainline don't make too much of an effort to warn customers when they're overpaying so you'll only know that Anytimes are unnecessary on weekends if you read all the small print beforehand, which few people have time for.

ScotRail's peak fare abolition is something that genuinely does simplify ticketing, but it only works if the capacity is there to support it (which there isn't on many English rail lines) and if there isn't a Project Oval-style secret fares increase as a result.

Ultimately the ideal fares system is something similar to Austria's Klimaticket or Germany's D-ticket. Full flexibility for an affordable upfront cost. That way, nobody can complain that one group gets a handout while another struggles to pay for rail fares. E.g. it'd stop the endless pointless debate over who needs discounted fares more, seniors or young adults - The answer is both, even if the demographics of posters on this forum makes the debate a bit one-sided.

However, GB is a long way away from being able to meet the required amounts of network capacity, service quality and rail subsidy that's needed to maintain such a scheme. That's what GBR needs to get to work on.

 

[NER1621]

If the discount is 33%, it needs to generate 50% more travel to be revenue neutral. A price of £100 will simply favour people who are already predisposed to rail travel, yet still lose the railway revenue. How do you accommodate 50% more travellers on already busy trains with an offer which isn't targetted at using spare capacity?

I didn’t say anything about the rate of discount (or whether it was fixed or variable), about what time restrictions would apply (peak/off-peak/weekdays/weekends/none in January etc.), and my £100 was just a punt - but yes, intended to be at a level that would appeal to people already pre-disposed to rail travel: those are your customer base. My point was the price of the railcard itself would be variable - that would be how you gave the concession. Price it high enough so it’s revenue neutral if that’s what you want. Because if your objective is not rewarding frequent customers but is in increasing the numbers travelling (which raises the capacity issue) then the current mish mash of railcards isn’t the way: just make targeted fares cheaper. In other words: make Advances do what they were originally intended to do.

 

[HSTEd]

No, fare simplification will penalise those who are prepared to do a bit of research and leg work, and will reward those who assume everything will be handed to them on a plate. These days most people shop around to get the best deals for products and services - a task made much simpler with the Internet - and yet for inexplicable reasons many seem to be unwilling or incapable of working out how to pay the least for rail travel.

I object to this system because it is simply a treadmill set up to waste energy and time.

You create artificial barriers and then punish people for not overcoming them.

You reward people for pointless "shopping around" by punishing those people who don't take part in this activity, even though "shopping around" doesn't save society anything.
Nothing is actually saved by this process, its just a bureaucratic zero-sum-game.

Indeed the complex fares and associated bureaucracy cost the railway money to implement and maintain.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm afraid with the triple lock, home ownership distribution, and the state of the housing market I can't find too much sympathy for non-disabled seniors.

The difference in your examples is that the product you are getting at the different restaurants is not the same: they are selling you two different pizzas. On the railway if you go to a ticket office and ask for a ticket from A to B you will be sold a ticket that likely has strictly less validity than a cheaper combination of tickets. I agree with @Bletchleyite that this is dishonest.

As someone approaching senior status (not state pension age but old enough to get a senior Railcard) with a primary school age child l'm damned if l would vote for any party expecting me to pay even more for other people's kids.

Similarly l expected Burnham's northern-centric policies to lose dozens of seats in London and the South.

 

[Farigiraf]

As someone approaching senior status (not state pension age but old enough to get a senior Railcard) with a primary school age child l'm damned if l would vote for any party expecting me to pay even more for other people's kids.

The amount of money your child would save from a rail subsidy, assuming they travel semi-regularly by train once they're older, would outweigh any extra you'd have to pay in tax to fund such a subsidy. Not to mention they wouldn't have to ask their parents to pay for their train tickets as much, as young people are more likely to be able to pay for train fares themselves as they get older if they're affordable, which increases independence.