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 believe that a service should be provided that searches train tickets and informs people on the best combination of tickets. There is clear benefit to passengers from such a scheme, but equally there are costs to rail companies as people will no longer pay more than they need to.
Often there are pioneers who provide the service and a debt is certainly owed to them. However, with some services the public provision is more optimal.
Given we have identified that there will always be short distance day returns, advances and other discounts the probability is that combining tickets is better than a single long distance fare. Which makes the question very simple. Should all people be able to pay the face value of those cheaper tickets?
OK but how would the shortfall in revenue be funded?
Split ticketing can save a significant amount, especially for journeys which commence at peak times; I amsure most leisure passengers travelling at peak times who are on a budget will already be using splitting sites, so it's mostly business travellers who will be paying less under your proposals.
Would the general public be happy for taxes to increase to pay for increased rail subsidy?
Also is there a possibility more people will travel at those busier times, and if so how would you fund the cost of increasing line capacity, additional carriages, longer platforms etc?
I was only questioning the morality of using a split ticketing site to find the best fare and then booking with a company who wants to charge you more; for sure what you said was inaccurate.
The question is whether even those who cannot/do not/will not search online train booking engines should be able to pay the lower price.
(I realise that it is very easy to spin this to a discussion of the morals of anyone looking up fares on splitticket and then buying exactly the fares it recommends from a website which does not charge the % of the saving - we agree to disagree on that one)
For this example I use "I" because it is easier to type in that way:
I find split tickets from A to B then B to C with different operators, call them X and Y. I put the same journey A to C and neither operator offers me the split. I put A to B and B to C and I can buy the ticket from either operator at the lower price without a split share. So I am not sure we are saying that a company that wanted to charge me more is charging me more. Let's leave it at that, if others are paying the split share then that is their choice.
Now if the contention is that everyone who could benefit from splits is doing then we really are in a good place. I suspect that is not true and there is a large number of people who could benefit, but are not. Further I suspect that many of those who do not benefit are not actually so rich as not to care.
I have cited academic work on the costs of digital exclusion, and made very clear what theory tells us in terms of correcting market failure.
To me there is a clear case of information which could bring benefit not being in the public domain because of anti-competitive practice by the train companies. Whilst the beneficiary is the government predominantly, that would not make them exempt from being challenged. The airline example is relevant, but probably not one for national government.
I am still not convinced that web scraping tools could not emulate trainsplit, but I will confess my programming is limited to modelling rather than web scraping. Maybe there is a challenge that I am missing.
So then we have the question of the shortfall in revenue, well it depends on elasticity because IF the cheaper fares increase rail use then that could be beneficial. IF the result is an increase in all fares then the same market forces that brought advances and day returns will still keep them there and they will still have to be cheaper than the flexible fare for exactly the reasons they are now. The whole thing might move up in prices, but people moving from the flexible fare to splits are still likely to save. The point is we do not actually know. It is far from certain that the defaulting to offering the best deal would actually be as harmful as the % drop in revenue on like for like sales would suggest.
I will always see here a case of people who know about splitting, can split and do split are benefitting at the expense of others and that is not really how a well functioning market should operate, especially when the advantage is predominantly regressive.
No doubt this is an interesting conversation though, so whilst we do not agree thank you Yorkie for some excellent posts.
For this example I use "I" because it is easier to type in that way:
I find split tickets from A to B then B to C with different operators, call them X and Y. I put the same journey A to C and neither operator offers me the split. I put A to B and B to C and I can buy the ticket from either operator at the lower price without a split share. So I am not sure we are saying that a company that wanted to charge me more is charging me more. Let's leave it at that, if others are paying the split share then that is their choice.
The cheapest way remains to use one of the train operator sites having found out which is the best split, but I do appreciate that does not pay the bills of the people who are running the split sites. This is why I was looking at ways that the providers of the information could make money from everyone and not just those who then are kind enough to buy from the site itself.
If you are going to use Trainsplit to find the cheapest splits, the least you can do is put the individual searches into Trainsplit to buy from them, rather than deprive them of any commission and buy from a train company.
I don't see how you can deny that for any such journey a train company wants to charge you more for your journey; the algebra doesn't change that fact.
If the train company was not trying to charge you more in the first place, you'd not be using Trainsplit to find a cheaper way to make that journey, would you?
Now if the contention is that everyone who could benefit from splits is doing then we really are in a good place. I suspect that is not true and there is a large number of people who could benefit, but are not. Further I suspect that many of those who do not benefit are not actually so rich as not to care.
It's not just that people who don't bother with splits are "rich" they may just be content to pay the price. Have you actually studied market based pricing and yield management techniques? Your posts suggest not.
To me there is a clear case of information which could bring benefit not being in the public domain because of anti-competitive practice by the train companies.
Anticompetitive practice does occur on the part of train companies but if you are claiming that your chosen retailer charging York to Derby at 0844 at £123.10 for a flexible return, while the forum's site only charges £38.70, this isn't actually anticompetitive.
Also if you feel the TOCs are being anticompetetive, why be so keen to give them commission, rather than the company that found you a cheaper deal?
Whilst the beneficiary is the government predominantly, that would not make them exempt from being challenged. The airline example is relevant, but probably not one for national government.
I am still not convinced that web scraping tools could not emulate trainsplit, but I will confess my programming is limited to modelling rather than web scraping. Maybe there is a challenge that I am missing.
So then we have the question of the shortfall in revenue, well it depends on elasticity because IF the cheaper fares increase rail use then that could be beneficial.
Sounds great in theory but is the Government likely to fund the increase in track capacity, platform lengthening, additional carriages, etc? Would an increase in taxation be acceptable to the general electorate? What you are asking for is a huge investment in rail at the same time as cutting fares; I'd love to see that happen but it's just not realistic.
IF the result is an increase in all fares then the same market forces that brought advances and day returns will still keep them there and they will still have to be cheaper than the flexible fare for exactly the reasons they are now. The whole thing might move up in prices, but people moving from the flexible fare to splits are still likely to save. The point is we do not actually know. It is far from certain that the defaulting to offering the best deal would actually be as harmful as the % drop in revenue on like for like sales would suggest.
I will always see here a case of people who know about splitting, can split and do split are benefitting at the expense of others and that is not really how a well functioning market should operate, especially when the advantage is predominantly regressive.
Better not ever take a plane, go shopping, get a mobile phone contract then. And make sure you avoid any shop that has special offers, coupons, loyalty schemes, multibuy deals etc.
Anyway you are entitled to your ideological position but the issue is that you don't have any practical solutions. Unless there is a huge change in funding for railways, we're stuck.
If you are going to use Trainsplit to find the cheapest splits, the least you can do is put the individual searches into Trainsplit to buy from them, rather than deprive them of any commission and buy from a train company.
There's also a convenience aspect to it, dealing with e-tickets in an app can be easier than dealing with them as .pdf files, although this is very much a personal choice aspect.
There's also a convenience aspect to it, dealing with e-tickets in an app can be easier than dealing with them as .pdf files, although this is very much a personal choice aspect.
But there is surely convenience in having all tickets in one PDF file, rather than having to switch bookings within a train company app? Also, for people who book each leg with the relevant operator, that even means swapping apps.
I was working on a case where the tickets are bought individually on either a TOC's app or Trainsplit, which for both cases they'd be delivered individually, also, there's not much difficulty in changing between, since I don't think there's many cases where you'd have to show multiple at once.
Doesn't have the advanced routing and operator selection features but it has a nice graphical user interface to choose leg by leg from a large number of options on a slider, one tap showing the changing points and prices for each itinerary, rather than the matrix of the desktop site.
I am probably an outlier in that my recent uses of Trainsplit have been to search and book interregional journeys with specific changes, operators, traction and longer, otherwise not permitted routes for the sake of sheer interest, with cost and time not primary concerns. In most cases these have been slightly more expensive than the cheapest possible split on the obvious routes, but always cheaper than an open return.
I can't imagine any other provider having the capability to offer me Cambridge to Manchester via Liverpool St, Paddington, Bristol and Newport, returning via Bradford Interchange and Kings Cross. The latter required me adding some very specific advanced options knowing what I wanted to do, but the outbound was offered without any specific stipulations and was a very good value fare compared to the obvious routes.
Two jolly good days out they were too and I was happy for Trainsplit to share the savings, although I've no idea how they were calculated for this kind of non-permitted (on a single ticket) routing.
Doesn't have the advanced routing and operator selection features but it has a nice graphical user interface to choose leg by leg from a large number of options on a slider, one tap showing the changing points and prices for each itinerary, rather than the matrix of the desktop site.
Can you set up and buy one on the website and by using the same account on the app would it work as an e-ticket on there?
That's what I do with Avanti.
Can you set up and buy one on the website and by using the same account on the app would it work as an e-ticket on there?
That's what I do with Avanti.
What I am proposing is very simple. However, there are personal interests in making it opaque.
Trainsplit takes a query for a journey from A to C (Label the ticket price AC) and splits it so that it is cheaper. In the simplest sense Trainsplit identifies A to B (Label this ticket price AB) and B to C (ticket price BC). For the privilege of identifying that the option to split at B exists Trainsplit charges 15% of the difference [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.15. Hence the customer saves [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.85.
A customer searching the same information on the existence of the A to B, B to C tickets could go to any website and buy those two tickets. The customer can currently go to a ticket office and even some TVMs. Under any of these options the cost to the customer is AB + BC. The saving for the customer is AC - (AB+BC). By simple algebra [AC - (AB+BC)]*1 < [AC-(AB+BC)]*0.85 IFF AC > AB+BC. AC > AB+BC holds because of the assumed advantage of the split. In the case AC < AB+BC there is no saving.
If anyone wants to book from a site that charges a booking fee that is up to them, but sites like gwr.com (The official website of GWR which has a ticket booking option) do not charge booking fees. It always baffles me that anyone would pay a booking fee for train tickets.
That proves that a retailer who is not showing the saving can offer the saving and be cheaper than Trainsplit if the user asks the right question of the retailer.
Is that sufficiently clear that we can move on to the question about how transparent the split at B is?
Then we get into opinion about who would benefit/suffer from publicising all options as default. Likely cost to the railways etc. To me that is where we should be though, not trying to muddy the waters about the mathematics.
There are some very interesting discussions to be had on the implications of everyone having access to lower rail prices with limited informational cost. This thread was intended for those discussions.
What I am proposing is very simple. However, there are personal interests in making it opaque.
Trainsplit takes a query for a journey from A to C (Label the ticket price AC) and splits it so that it is cheaper. In the simplest sense Trainsplit identifies A to B (Label this ticket price AB) and B to C (ticket price BC). For the privilege of identifying that the option to split at B exists Trainsplit charges 15% of the difference [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.15. Hence the customer saves [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.85.
A customer searching the same information on the existence of the A to B, B to C tickets could go to any website and buy those two tickets. The customer can currently go to a ticket office and even some TVMs. Under any of these options the cost to the customer is AB + BC. The saving for the customer is AC - (AB+BC). By simple algebra [AC - (AB+BC)]*1 < [AC-(AB+BC)]*0.85 IFF AC > AB+BC. AC > AB+BC holds because of the assumed advantage of the split. In the case AC < AB+BC there is no saving.
If anyone wants to book from a site that charges a booking fee that is up to them, but sites like gwr.com (The official website of GWR which has a ticket booking option) do not charge booking fees. It always baffles me that anyone would pay a booking fee for train tickets.
That proves that a retailer who is not showing the saving can offer the saving and be cheaper than Trainsplit if the user asks the right question of the retailer.
Is that sufficiently clear that we can move on to the question about how transparent the split at B is?
Then we get into opinion about who would benefit/suffer from publicising all options as default. Likely cost to the railways etc. To me that is where we should be though, not trying to muddy the waters about the mathematics.
There are some very interesting discussions to be had on the implications of everyone having access to lower rail prices with limited informational cost. This thread was intended for those discussions.
It sounds to me as though you want to have your cake and eat it.
By all means search manually for splits and buy them from your retailer of choice. This is what many of us did for years and I've personally spent hours doing it over the years to get cheaper tickets.
Nowadays we have sites like Trainsplit that have been developed to automate this. This development doesn't come for free and they do charge a percentafe of the saving but each individual has to weigh up the benefit of a site like Trainsplit doing all of the leg work compared to the time taken to indentify the splits manually.
What I don't think is right is using a company like Trainsplit to identify splits and then purchasing them separately. If everyone did that then sites like Trainsplit would cease to exist, and along with it innovation would die. You don't seem to unerstand this.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need to use split ticketing. That said we don't live in an ideal world. There's nothing to stop a train company developing their own split ticketing sites , LNER do have a rudimentary form of it, but the others have chosen not to do so. Perhaps you should ask the train companies why they choose not to do so.
A customer searching the same information on the existence of the A to B, B to C tickets could go to any website and buy those two tickets. The customer can currently go to a ticket office and even some TVMs. Under any of these options the cost to the customer is AB + BC. The saving for the customer is AC - (AB+BC). By simple algebra [AC - (AB+BC)]*1 < [AC-(AB+BC)]*0.85 IFF AC > AB+BC. AC > AB+BC holds because of the assumed advantage of the split. In the case AC < AB+BC there is no saving.
This doesn't factor in the time it would take for the user to calculate their own splits, for instance one I've manually calculated myself would have an opportunity cost of around £36 in foregone labour, so the calculation would be more akin to checking if the commission<time*rate.
If anyone wants to book from a site that charges a booking fee that is up to them, but sites like gwr.com (The official website of GWR which has a ticket booking option) do not charge booking fees. It always baffles me that anyone would pay a booking fee for train tickets.
That proves that a retailer who is not showing the saving can offer the saving and be cheaper than Trainsplit if the user asks the right question of the retailer.
Splits are a more expensive service due to higher overheads in research, maintenance and operation. So operators and vendors often choose to retail point to point fairs only or a limited selection of splits where they get a higher/full share of the ticket price (LNER) to avoid charging additional fees over the paltry retail commission.
So it doesn't necessarily track that a retailer could swallow the additional cost providing splits incurs without having to charge a booking fee as the (derisive amount of) retail commission wouldn't cover the extra costs borne on the retailer and in some cases doesn't cover overheads for even basic point to point journeys.
LNER offer smart-save where for certain LNER only flows they offer basic splits as they can cover this additional retailing cost from the ticket revenue not the retail commission (I'd argue this is anti-competitive but that's for a different thread) in a similar manner to their loyalty scheme cashback can only be applied to LNER only tickets hence allowing them to forego charging a fee.
I'm not sure I would say that it is. Anyone can use the site and get a breakdown of the tickets being sold (it's not hidden away or locked behind a subscription fee), and a set of splits as basic information doesn't meet the threshold for copyright - surely?
What you would appear to be arguing for is for a split-ticketing algorithm to be open-sourced/released as free software (in the name of digital inclusion?), which is rather different to the actual splits being proprietary. I see that as a very different discussion, and whilst I think it'd be great to have a FOSS journey planner to be able to tinker with, it's notoriously hard to monetise free software and releasing software like this would benefit other retailers and operators moreso than members of the public interested in their travel. FastJP and Raileasy operating as a business keeps a number of forum members employed, contributes towards some of the running costs of the forum via the RailUKTickets site and funds further R&D.
The UK still has a mentality of charging the most money out of every passenger rather than growing passenger numbers. Short term split ticketing is a fix for incredibly expensive fares.
If anyone wants to book from a site that charges a booking fee that is up to them, but sites like gwr.com (The official website of GWR which has a ticket booking option) do not charge booking fees. It always baffles me that anyone would pay a booking fee for train tickets.
That proves that a retailer who is not showing the saving can offer the saving and be cheaper than Trainsplit if the user asks the right question of the retailer.
Yes. You can manually put the splits in to a website which doesn't charge a fee and you will save more. Trainsplit and Trainline's SplitSave take a fee but do the work for you.
You can do it yourself manually if you don't want to pay the fee. Putting it into trainsplit and then going elsewhere is a bit immoral when trainsplit has just saved you a bunch of money.
Any retailer could do it but they need a financial incentive to do so. LNER offer it but inly when it will increase the share of the fare to them, no other operators offer it as they'd likely loose revenue. Trainsplit and Trainline offer it as their incentive is the booking fee which for the latter is fixed and the former is incentivised to save you the most money.
What I am proposing is very simple. However, there are personal interests in making it opaque.
Trainsplit takes a query for a journey from A to C (Label the ticket price AC) and splits it so that it is cheaper. In the simplest sense Trainsplit identifies A to B (Label this ticket price AB) and B to C (ticket price BC). For the privilege of identifying that the option to split at B exists Trainsplit charges 15% of the difference [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.15. Hence the customer saves [AC - (AB+BC)]*0.85.
A customer searching the same information on the existence of the A to B, B to C tickets could go to any website and buy those two tickets. The customer can currently go to a ticket office and even some TVMs. Under any of these options the cost to the customer is AB + BC. The saving for the customer is AC - (AB+BC). By simple algebra [AC - (AB+BC)]*1 < [AC-(AB+BC)]*0.85 IFF AC > AB+BC. AC > AB+BC holds because of the assumed advantage of the split. In the case AC < AB+BC there is no saving.
Yes if people don't want to use Trainsplit and do their own research, assuming their time is worth nothing, they might be able to match Trainsplit and therefore save the share of savings fee.
If you don't want someone else to work it out for you, by all means feel free to do that, if you want to spend your time doing that. But based on your past posts, it appears you'd rather someone else figure it out. You just don't want anyone to get renumerated for doing that work for you. The fact you could choose to do that is theoretical as you've admitted to using Trainsplit instead of doing it yourself.
In some cases you would need to spend hours figuring out how to match Trainsplit, and that could be for just one itinerary!
If anyone wants to book from a site that charges a booking fee that is up to them, but sites like gwr.com (The official website of GWR which has a ticket booking option) do not charge booking fees. It always baffles me that anyone would pay a booking fee for train tickets.
There isn't any need to discuss booking fees here though; Trainsplit doesn't charge booking fees so will never be undercut by any operator's own site (except, as mentioned before, some TOCs only make their special offer fares available through their own website, which is clearly unlawful and anticompetetive).
That proves that a retailer who is not showing the saving can offer the saving and be cheaper than Trainsplit if the user asks the right question of the retailer.
Eh? If you ask for a combination of tickets from Trainsplit it will be the same price as asking for the same combination of tickets from another retailer, so I don't understand what you are saying; it makes no sense to me.
Then we get into opinion about who would benefit/suffer from publicising all options as default. Likely cost to the railways etc. To me that is where we should be though, not trying to muddy the waters about the mathematics.
Ok so you are back to saying TOCs should use the underlying system which Trainsplit uses (which they could actually do!), and everyone who currently pays for more expensive through fares would be paying for the cheaper combination of fares.
There are some very interesting discussions to be had on the implications of everyone having access to lower rail prices with limited informational cost. This thread was intended for those discussions.
Of the remaining 4%, how many of those are likely to be making rail journeys (other than very short hop journeys to go to the local shops), given that those 4% are likely to be very elderly people who may not be able to travel alone or, if they can do so, may need a family member or friend to book for them.
I've been in a position of inviting hundreds of people to complete online forms for a few years now; I've previously offered alternatives to the online form, but no-one ever took it up.
I don't know any friends or relatives who do not have online access; I have had very elderly relatives who would not have been able to make journeys alone, let alone want to book them alone, and therefore they're not relevant.
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if a retailer could install TVMs which would offer split tickets and a printed barcode ticket, but that isn't where the market is heading. If anyone thinks they can operate such TVMs, or even having a staffed ticket office to do it, nothing is stopping you doing that! Chester-le-Track did it for many years. But good luck to anyone who thinks it would be financially viable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The UK still has a mentality of charging the most money out of every passenger rather than growing passenger numbers. Short term split ticketing is a fix for incredibly expensive fares.
I agree with you that the higher priced fares are the fares which are too expensive, and the fares offered as part of a combination of tickets are the correctly priced ones.
Sadly almost all proposals to change fares do not agree with this, and therefore we need to be very careful!
Trainsplit do not charge a booking fee, and neither do Trainline if using their app on the day of travel. The previous poster is conflating share of savings fees with booking fees.
Trainsplit is either the same price, or cheaper, than a TOC site.
You can do it yourself manually if you don't want to pay the fee. Putting it into trainsplit and then going elsewhere is a bit immoral when trainsplit has just saved you a bunch of money.
Any retailer could do it but they need a financial incentive to do so. LNER offer it but inly when it will increase the share of the fare to them, no other operators offer it as they'd likely loose revenue. Trainsplit and Trainline offer it as their incentive is the booking fee which for the latter is fixed and the former is incentivised to save you the most money.
I see that 80% of over 65s live in a household with an internet connection.
Internet connections in households with one adult aged 65 years and over have increased by seven percentage points since 2019 to 80%; these households still had the lowest proportion of internet connections.
That means that 20% of over 65s live in a household without an internet connection. That's one in five.
I also see that it says that 65% of over 65s have shopped online in the 12 months prior to the survey.
In January to February 2020, 87% of all adults shopped online within the last 12 months, up from 53% in 2008; those aged 65 years and over had the highest growth, rising from 16% to 65% over this period.
I've been in a position of inviting hundreds of people to complete online forms for a few years now; I've previously offered alternatives to the online form, but no-one ever took it up.
I don't know any friends or relatives who do not have online access.
What this forum shows time and time again is that the small samples of "people I know" are very unrepresentative of the population as a whole, as demonstrated in official statistics.
I see that 80% of over 65s live in a household with an internet connection.
That means that 20% of over 65s live in a household without an internet connection. That's one in five.
I also see that it says that 65% of over 65s have shopped online in the 12 months prior to the survey.
That means that 35% of over 65s had not shopped online for anything in the previous 12 months. That's more than one in three.
What this forum shows time and time again is that the small samples of "people I know" are very unrepresentative of the population as a whole, as demonstrated in official statistics.
You missed my point, but you are absolutely right that the vast majority of over 65s do indeed have "an internet connection"; furthermore many of those who don't have an "internet connection" can still access the internet, even if not necessarily using their own device and/or at home.
If you then look at the minority who do not have internet access, your statistics say absolutely nothing on the subject of what I posted earlier, which was that those people are likely not making journeys by train (and of those who are, it'll be short hop journeys or they will likely have a friend or relative booking for them).
I have experience of booking journeys for older relatives. I'm not saying that "people I know" are entirely representative of the population of the whole, but I know that a reasonable proportion of older people are not fit/well enough to make long train journeys, or if they are, they would much rather have someone help book the journey for them.
Those older people who are independent enough to make such journeys by rail are extremely likely to have internet access at home; those that don't are likely to have access through services such as public libraries.
But by all means feel free to create a ticket office counter at a busy station of your choice offering split tickets to cater for that demand if you think there is a demand for it. The likes of Chester-le-Track have done it, so it's not impossible. But they have realised the market has changed and people are overwhelmingly going online (including the vast majority of older people)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I wasn't taking or missing any points. I was merely showing that large number of over 65s do not have an internet connection, and that an even larger number have not done any internet shopping in the period of the survey.
But a significant minority do not. Let's turn percentages into a headcount.
The over 65 population in England and Wales was about 11 million in the 2021 census.
20% with no household internet connection is more than 2 million people.
35% who haven't done internet shopping is nearly 4 million people.
That's a lot of people.
Even if those numbers have gone down since Covid, they are still big numbers.
And people who first went online during Covid would most likely have done so to keep in contact with family and friends, and/or to do the supermarket shop. It is a leap of faith to suggest that many of them will also have become familiar with buying rail tickets on line. You may remember that we were locked down during Covid and the opportunity for travel was strictly limited.
Those older people who are independent enough to make such journeys by rail are extremely likely to have internet access at home; those that don't are likely to have access through services such as public libraries.
That's just an assumption based on a small and unrepresentative sample.
Your notion that people with no home internet connection and no experience of online shopping will buy tickets (or anything) online in public libraries bears no relation to the reality of the lives of people who are not comfortable with the internet.
And are you not familiar with the reduction in public library service that has resulted from more than a decade of austerity, especially in rural areas?
I wasn't taking or missing any points. I was merely showing that large number of over 65s do not have an internet connection, and that an even larger number have not done any internet shopping in the period of the survey.
Exactly, though this "large number" is a small proportion (around 20%) and doesn't take into account that some of those will still be able to gain access even if it's not on their own device, and many of those won't be making these sorts of journeys.
They have gone down since Covid and it also doesn't account for people who will be able to access the internet on devices they do not own, such as at public libraries.
Many of those you are including will not be particularly active; some will have conditions such as dementia for example:
And people who first went online during Covid would most likely have done so to keep in contact with family and friends, and/or to do the supermarket shop. It is a leap of faith to suggest that many of them will also have become familiar with buying rail tickets on line. You may remember that we were locked down during Covid and the opportunity for travel was strictly limited.
It's a leap of faith to suggest that many of those who have no access to the internet at all on any device either owned by them or provided by a public library or any other service are making longer distance journeys by train, if that is what you are suggesting?
That's just an assumption based on a small and unrepresentative sample.
Your notion that people with no home internet connection and no experience of online shopping will buy tickets (or anything) online in public libraries bears no relation to the reality of the lives of people who are not comfortable with the internet.
And are you not familiar with the reduction in public library service that has resulted from more than a decade of austerity, especially in rural areas?
You are also assuming that all older people have good family support or connections, and completely ignoring the people who don't.
It's a leap of faith to suggest that many of those who have no access to the internet at all on any device either owned by them or provided by a public library or any other service are making longer distance journeys by train, if that is what you are suggesting?
I'm not making any leaps of faith, or suggesting anything, apart from a possible projection of the data forward from 2020.
I'm merely pointing out what the data says about digital exclusion amongst the over 65s, and that your assumptions about the over 65 population are not backed up by the data, or seemingly any other evidence apart from personal anecdote.
I do find it astonishing that you regard a group of nearly 4 million people who have not shopped on the internet as irrelevant for rail ticket sales.
Of course it doesn't - at least, not initially. I don't think @yorkie suggested that it did universally rule out public transport at all though, it was just an example of a condition that statistically*, will mean your average person with the disease is less likely to be taking public transport which means your estimate of those "digitally excluded" who would have a desire to take the train and be unable to buy online is overinflated.
* I'm sure you could locate some figures or peer-reviewed studies on the progression of dementia to back this up. I'm happy listening to members of my family who've worked in care personally and taking their word for it, I think it's given me a fairly accurate idea of how these things usually progress.
But the figures that you are using are not necessarily directly relevant; you can't calculate how many people actually travel by train for journeys other than short hops and have not only no internet access themselves but also no way to access it anywhere.
What "assumptions"? The data you quote does not actually give figures for what really matters, which is how many people make journeys for which split ticketing would be useful who also have absolutely no way to go online anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people have absolutely no internet access whatsoever (including no access to a public library or any other service) and also make longer distance (not just short hop!) rail journeys who would benefit from split ticketing?
But the figures that you are using are not necessarily directly relevant; you can't calculate how many people actually travel by train for journeys other than short hops and have not only no internet access themselves but also no way to access it anywhere.
What "assumptions"? The data you quote does not actually give figures for what really matters, which is how many people make journeys for which split ticketing would be useful who also have absolutely no way to go online anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people have absolutely no internet access whatsoever (including no access to a public library or any other service) and also make longer distance (not just short hop!) rail journeys who would benefit from split ticketing?
I haven't said anything about the specific issue of split ticketing at all. All I'm doing is trying to ensure that this discussion is educated and informed by what the official data says about internet access, especially amongst the over 65s.
The title of this discussion is "can everyone use split tickets?". The key word in that is "everyone".
Are you saying people with dementia would be undertaking longer distance train journeys and booking their own tickets? Have any of your relatives had dementia? My grandmothers both had it and there is no way you would want them doing that.
I haven't said anything about the specific issue of split ticketing at all. All I'm doing is torying to ensure that this discussion is educated and informed by what the official data says about internet access, especially amongst the over 65s.
Who are you saying can't use split tickets, why can't they use split tickets?
People can still use split tickets without internet access, but the suggestion there are hundreds of thousands of rail users who make longer distance journeys and also have absolutely no way to access the internet anywhere is absurd.
Are you saying people with dementia would be undertaking longer distance train journeys and booking their own tickets? Have any of your relatives had dementia?
I reiterate that the ONS data shows that 1 in 5 over 65s do not live in a household with internet access, and 1 in 3 haven't done internet shopping. In practical terms, notional access via, for example, public libraries, does not add anything to access for those people. The ONS data is not perfect, but it tells us broadly what we need to know.
I'm discussing your assumptions about older people.
That started with the ONS data on internet access, how people use it, and what useful conclusions can be drawn from that.
That's now strayed into debunking your assumptions about older people more generally to the particular case of people with dementia. You introduced that into the discussion, not me.
Another assumption. In the early stages of dementia, people are still quite capable of making journeys on their own. Maintaining independence and social contact are a huge part of slowing down the onset of dementia, and for the physical and mental health of those who are diagnosed with it. Sometimes people are able to carry on doing most normal tasks for a number of years. With the right risk management it is quite safe.
One bit of that risk management is keeping things as simple and familiar as possible. That includes ticketing, where one ticket covering all of the journey is much less risky than a fistful of part journey tickets with huge potential for triggering confusion.
And on a much broader view, that assertion is not correct, what I think of as the arrogance of the capable. Even amongst those that do have internet at home, and have done some shopping, it doesn't follow that they necessarily have the skills to feel confident using, for example, unfamiliar and arcane ticketing systems. This is about whether people have learned the skills needed to perform the task, and where simplicity and familiarity are important in widening access for lots of older people, especially those that did not have the opportunity to learn some of those skills at work.
In practical terms, notional access via, for example, public libraries, does not add anything to access for those people. The ONS data is not perfect, but it tells us broadly what we need to know.
That's now strayed into debunking your assumptions about older people more generally to the particular case of people with dementia. You introduced that into the discussion, not me.
Yes in the early stages of dementia people are capable of making journeys but I know through experience these should be regular and shorter journeys, not ad-hoc longer distance journeys.
Maintaining independence and social contact are a huge part of slowing down the onset of dementia, and for the physical and mental health of those who are diagnosed with it. Sometimes people are able to carry on doing most normal tasks for a number of years. With the right risk management it is quite safe.
Absolutely; regular routines are very important. However once my grandmothers developed dementia it would not be adviseable for them to go to a station by themselves, ask for complicated tickets from a ticket office or TVM, and then undertake a longer distance journey unacommpanied.
We would always ensure they were accompanied and we would be going through the ticketing arrangements with them, no leaving them to their own devices.
This is very different to someone making a regular journey and purchase they are already familiar with
One bit of that risk management is keeping things as simple and familiar as possible. That includes ticketing, where one ticket covering all of the journey is much less risky than a fistful of part journey tickets with huge potential for triggering confusion.
Exactly my point, so if your argument is that people with early dementia should be going to stations to make complicated transactions and journeys by themselves, I would reject that as unwise. If you are not arguing that then I don't understand why you are arguing with me.
And on a much broader view, that assertion is not correct, what I think of as the arrogance of the capable. Even amongst those that do have internet at home, and have done some shopping, it doesn't follow that they necessarily have the skills to feel confident using, for example, unfamiliar and arcane ticketing systems. This is about whether people have learned the skills needed to perform the task, and where simplicity and familiarity are important in widening access for lots of older people, especially those that did not have the opportunity to learn some of those skills at work.
What is it you are proposing again? Please do remind me, as although this paragraph includes a lot of complaining it isn't clear what you are actually suggesting, or how you would achieve it!
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.
