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

[andy33gmail]

Aldi/Lidl would argue that just having a reasonable price for one product is the right way.

Exactly. And aside from ApprovedFoods & TooGoodToGo I just rely on Aldi being cheapest, because they usually are. That’s in spite of knowing I could probably swap a couple of products for loss leaders at Sainsburys over the road

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2025 ==

And those sites and apps all offer fares based on journey planner inputs, which generate valid itineraries which surely remove even more of the confusion - just follow what it says?

Which I great until your train is late or cancelled, you miss a train through your own fault, or you want to change plans

At that stage you need to work out exactly what tickets you have, what services exist, and piece together a solution

 

[vinnym70]

Hmm.. let's not forget that Boots is precisely the kind of business that thinks it's ok to push up prices of anti-histamines when seasonal rhinitis peaks. They may also offer 3-for-2 offers at the same time which means the price isn't necessarily higher if you take up the offer but there's plenty of people who won't/can't with part with additional money in a single transaction which means they are excluded from the offer

Whilst the piece is well articulated, it feels like a smoke and mirrors exercise to me.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have no idea how he thinks the Boots example isn't arbitrary. It's madness, and an extremely annoying feature of modern life.

The idea the Swiss system is not arbitrary when there are hundreds of millions of them and hey, if you are boring enough to just look it up online, it isn't arbitrary, because you can see all the maths.

I think he would have written a better article had he left the arbitrary argument out - it doesn't work.

He makes good points about cognitive effort and jeopardy though - these are the two major issues with the UK ticketing system. The suggestion of abolishing either the Off Peak or Anytime and having one "any train" fare probably has the most legs of any fare simplification proposal I've seen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He makes good points about cognitive effort and jeopardy though - these are the two major issues with the UK ticketing system. The suggestion of abolishing either the Off Peak or Anytime and having one "any train" fare probably has the most legs of any fare simplification proposal I've seen.

Though removes your ability to yield manage, and thus increases overcrowding and reduces income.

If one distance based fare was the most profitable way to run transport, the low cost airlines would do it that way (notably it could well be that for short distance local transport given that bus operators tend to do that and don't have peak/off peak differentials). Freddie Laker of course did, but that was back in the days when yield management was much more difficult because the computing just didn't exist, and it was sort-of done by having conditions on differently priced tickets like a mandatory Saturday night away which would be no use for a work trip.

 

[styles]

And those sites and apps all offer fares based on journey planner inputs, which generate valid itineraries which surely remove even more of the confusion - just follow what it says?

That said, I think some restrictions on off-peak tickets are confusing, or at least very badly worded - to the point of confusing.

However, my theory is that when people say that rail fares are confusing, what they actually mean is they don't (or don't want to) understand why there are different fares available. Why will it cost £25 to travel on the 08:45 train, but only £15 to travel on the 08:55 train? It's actually very simple and logical - the former is an Anytime fare, and is travelling on an intercity service - arguably more comfortable environment, more onboard facilities, less stops and a quicker journey time. The cheaper ticket is a "booked train only" advance, using a local service with more stops, a slower journey time, fewer onboard facilities and an arguably less comfortable environment. It's a concept that most people seem to understand when it comes to airlines - cheapest fare = no frills, no flexibility; higher fare = more frills, more flexibility. Perhaps it boils down to usage? People travelling a long distance are going to want to use an intercity operator and draw comparisons with airlines, whilst people making shorter journeys are more likely to draw comparisons to a bus and aren't massively fussed about whether they get the intercity option or the regional/local option (if such a choice exists for that route)?

I don't think people are genuinely confused by the notion that flexible, peak time, or fast service tickets are more expensive than others. Yeah some people make it a meme to say they can fly to Benidorm cheaper than they can get a train to Manchester or whatever, but those people know what they're saying and are being deliberately misleading.

But rail fares in the UK are confusing.

When I travel from my home in Scotland to where my mum lives in Wales, split tickets can save over 50%. This is just stupid.

26-30 Railcards have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays, but TVMs instead of selling an £8 undiscounted ticket will offer a £12 'discounted' ticket. This is just stupid.

16-25 Railcards also have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays... except in July and August. So a 25 year old gets a cheaper ticket on their morning commute in the summer, while a 26 year old doesn't. This is just stupid.

Actually age-based railcards are valid for a fixed period at the time of purchase, so a 26-30 Railcard is actually valid until the day before your 32nd birthday. This is also stupid.

The legislation makes it an offence to travel on a 16-25 ticket when you hold a 26-30 Railcard even though the price is the same. This is stupid, to the point that the regulator had to intervene to stop people being taken to court for criminal offences when the railway wasn't even losing money. This is just stupid.

That's before we even get into split tickets, rovers, GroupSave, TOC-specific group discounts, rangers, regional Railcards, SuperFares, ScotRail Kids For A Quid, Club Avanti, LNER cashback, the fact that mature students can get a 16-25 railcard, Scotland NEC, Unizones, GTR money back guarantee, XC feeless Advance ticket changes, PlusBus, Nothern Duo, gold cards, RailMaster, Rail & Sail, flexipasses, GA pregnant passenger first class upgrades, SeatFrog, carnets, season tickets, flexi passes, etc etc.

It's an absolute farce if you ask me. And no level of Boots-level sales assistant is going to solve this, not least because the guidelines say not to proactively offer e.g. split tickets.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I will comment about some of the other aspects of this later, but I do have to pick up on this one. TfL, quite sensibly, want to ensure that people given priv rates really are entitled to them. If staff add the wrong discount to a card (particularly 75% off rather than 33% off) then they get in trouble. The unions don't like that, understandably. Therefore, I believe that the unions will only allow a small subset of staff who have been appropriately trained to add the priv discount. The fact that this instruction from the union adversely affects other members of the same union is something that I can't get my head round. I would certainly be lobbying hard if I worked in a position that meant I was being adversely affected.

Once again, as in so many threads about why a particular problem exists in the rail industry, the answer is... the unions. Plus ça change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I travel from my home in Scotland to where my mum lives in Wales, split tickets can save over 50%. This is just stupid.

The splitting on Advances thing is because of how the quotas work - basically to issue an Advance the same quota has to be available for the whole journey. If it's only available for part of it (because it's sold out on the other part, say, not unusual for trains out of London) a split becomes cheaper.

There was a plan to change this a while back so it would calculate Advance fares on the fly based on what quota was available for each section of the journey, thus removing this issue, but it seems to have fizzled out.

26-30 Railcards have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays, but TVMs instead of selling an £8 undiscounted ticket will offer a £12 'discounted' ticket. This is just stupid.

This feature was put into the Scheidt & Bachmann TVMs which are near-ubiquitous because of the Virgin Trains "off peak restrictions don't apply with a Railcard" thing. Though why the more sensible line of charging the full price but with a Railcard flag rather than upping it to £12 wasn't chosen I never quite understood.

That offer has long since gone away, so the likes of Trainline don't even offer the discounted ticket if it wouldn't be cheaper. Probably time to update the TVMs to remove the feature, though there does remain the Network Railcard where if the minimum fare isn't much above the adult fare and you want to take children at the discount you would pay less by paying £13 for the adult.

Actually age-based railcards are valid for a fixed period at the time of purchase, so a 26-30 Railcard is actually valid until the day before your 32nd birthday. This is also stupid.

Is it? How? Worse would be buying one but finding you can only use it for three weeks. The idea that the restriction is that you must be of the specified age range when you purchase it but it then lasts 12 months is perfectly intuitive. It also means any check of being eligible takes place at issue rather than train crew having to worry about it.

 

[styles]

The splitting on Advances thing is because of how the quotas work - basically to issue an Advance the same quota has to be available for the whole journey. If it's only available for part of it (because it's sold out on the other part, say, not unusual for trains out of London) a split becomes cheaper.

There was a plan to change this a while back so it would calculate Advance fares on the fly based on what quota was available for each section of the journey, thus removing this issue, but it seems to have fizzled out.

I'm aware of why split tickets can be cheaper, but that doesn't make it any less stupid to the average traveller. If my partner needs to make a train journey, she frankly doesn't give a toss about quotas and regional discounting.

This feature was put into the Scheidt & Bachmann TVMs which are near-ubiquitous because of the Virgin Trains "off peak restrictions don't apply with a Railcard" thing. Though why the more sensible line of charging the full price but with a Railcard flag rather than upping it to £12 wasn't chosen I never quite understood.

Yes, updating the TVMs to remove this bizarre sales tactic would be good. As it stands though, these are the most prevalent TVMs and it's stupid.

That offer has long since gone away, so the likes of Trainline don't even offer the discounted ticket if it wouldn't be cheaper.

Maybe not, but the Trainline's booking engine this morning tried to sell me 2x£23.30 off peak singles when a £27 off peak return was available. I had to manually choose a cheaper ticket which was valid for the itinerary I'd selected. It's stupid.

Probably time to update the TVMs to remove the feature, though there does remain the Network Railcard where if the minimum fare isn't much above the adult fare and you want to take children at the discount you would pay less by paying £13 for the adult.

Yet another example of a stupid quirk in ticketing.

Is it? How? Worse would be buying one but finding you can only use it for three weeks. The idea that the restriction is that you must be of the specified age range when you purchase it but it then lasts 12 months is perfectly intuitive. It also means any check of being eligible takes place at issue rather than train crew having to worry about it.

Because it's actually a 26-31.99 Railcard. It works nothing like any other age-related rules on the railway. If you buy a child ticket, that traveller needs to be child age at the time of travel, not at the time of buying a ticket. If somebody is travelling on a discounted 60+ pass, they need to be 60+ at the time of travel, not at the time of buying the ticket. The railway already checks ages; it's hardly wild to suggest that a 26-30 Railcard should be valid for people aged... 26-30. I also think it's sneaky that if you're a mature student, you have to know that you're eligible for a 16-25 Railcard when you're not... 16-25. It's all just a farce.

These are all barriers to the average passenger getting the fare they need.

 

[AlterEgo]

Though removes your ability to yield manage, and thus increases overcrowding and reduces income.

No, because he also says Advances should be kept, which I agree with. I'm referring only to walkups here.

 

[jon0844]

Something else needs to factored in but I've no idea where!

When you go to Boots to buy your 3 for the price of 2 vitamins, you will almost invariably find that there are only two packs on the shelf and the staff will claim that they have no more out the back.

Same at Sports Direct where you often get two items for a big discount, but they often won't have two items of your chosen size. You therefore have to miss out on the offer if you want the item now.

Staff will always tell you that you should order online to secure the deals, which is likely why they do such deals because it means more people ordering online and less need to have large, well stocked, stores.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet another example of a stupid quirk in ticketing.

Obsessing about the letter of the rules is what causes that. If it's cheaper to pay full fare for the adult but purchase Railcard discounted tickets for the children, provided the Railcard holder is present that should be permitted. Similarly to purchase a discounted ticket for someone else while travelling on your season ticket, which is explicitly allowed for the Gold Card but not the Network Railcard. (That these two have grown apart is itself ridiculous of course!)

Because it's actually a 26-31.99 Railcard. It works nothing like any other age-related rules on the railway. If you buy a child ticket, that traveller needs to be child age at the time of travel, not at the time of buying a ticket. If somebody is travelling on a discounted 60+ pass, they need to be 60+ at the time of travel, not at the time of buying the ticket. The railway already checks ages; it's hardly wild to suggest that a 26-30 Railcard should be valid for people aged... 26-30. I also think it's sneaky that if you're a mature student, you have to know that you're eligible for a 16-25 Railcard when you're not... 16-25. It's all just a farce.

The problem, as I outlined, is that because it's valid for a year you get reduced value in your last year. Would you rather that? I think the rules as they are of age at purchase are fine - if you have it, it's valid. If anything moving ALL checks to the time of purchase would be a better simplification, so what if someone gets one last go on a child ticket because they bought it a week before they turned 16.

 

[styles]

Obsessing about the letter of the rules is what causes that. If it's cheaper to pay full fare for the adult but purchase Railcard discounted tickets for the children, provided the Railcard holder is present that should be permitted. Similarly to purchase a discounted ticket for someone else while travelling on your season ticket, which is explicitly allowed for the Gold Card but not the Network Railcard. (That these two have grown apart is itself ridiculous of course!)

This sentence epitomises the stupidity of the fares system imo.

The problem, as I outlined, is that because it's valid for a year you get reduced value in your last year. Would you rather that? I think the rules as they are of age at purchase are fine - if you have it, it's valid. If anything moving ALL checks to the time of purchase would be a better simplification, so what if someone gets one last go on a child ticket because they bought it a week before they turned 16.

If I had my way, I would scrap Railcards entirely. It's an unnecessary addition to the complexity of the rail system which punishes occasional travellers. If we are to retain them, then yes, I would rather they had reduced usefulness in their final year but their validity matched the name of the railcard. Calling it a 16-25 Railcard when it's valid until the day before you're 27 is stupid.

 

[jon81uk]

Alternatively, anyone not on this forum one has to assume Oyster fares always cost £16.80. That’s assuming you don’t tap out with the wrong card, costing £33.60. And the only “lazy” alternative is to de-risk it with a paper ticket

I don't think anyone is assuming the Oyster fare is always £16.80. A vast majority know roughly what their regular journey costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I had my way, I would scrap Railcards entirely. It's an unnecessary addition to the complexity of the rail system which punishes occasional travellers. If we are to retain them, then yes, I would rather they had reduced usefulness in their final year but their validity matched the name of the railcard. Calling it a 16-25 Railcard when it's valid until the day before you're 27 is stupid.

I didn't personally see any problem with "Young Person's Railcard" myself. That avoided any such debate. Yes, mature students aren't necessarily young people, but they also aren't necessarily 16-25 either.

I think I'd keep the single-user cards, indeed expand them to include one available to the middle aged at a higher price, but the price would be the only thing that varied by demographic, there would be only one set of terms applicable to all users as per Switzerland and only one discount button on a TVM etc. Sunk costs are a powerful marketing tool and are why people perceive car travel to be cheap as the only thing associated to a specific journey is fuel. The multi-user aspects I'd get rid of and replace with changes to GroupSave, and make that the only group discount facility, which would apply to any situation where more than one person was travelling together.

 

[DeverseSam]

However, as my total order was currently £19.20, I went to buy two packets of paracetamol at 60p each, to get my order up to £20.40. With £5 off, that made the price £15.40. The price per box of vitamins was therefore £6.80.

No, £28.78 for the total order

£7.93 per box

 

[Sonic1234]

I also think it's sneaky that if you're a mature student, you have to know that you're eligible for a 16-25 Railcard when you're not... 16-25. It's all just a farce.

Railcards have these barriers to entry, but if you can qualify they are content for you to use it until the expiry date. Years ago, I got a 16-25 for a year with one week of full time study left!

The railway doesn't want to make railcards available for all, but knows railcards do make money. If they didn't, why do they exist and/or why are they so heavily promoted?

 

[WestAnglian]

We often get told that rail fares are too complex. I came across this rather excellent blog post by Thomas Ableman, formerly of TfL and Chiltern Railways amongst others.

To improve the Boots analogy there would need to be about 30 tills, all selling mostly, but not exactly, the same products. Some charge you a commission, most don't. The busiest one charges, but is used by more people than any other till, probably because it's used by most people.

I'm afraid I can't come up with a suitable extension of the analogy to cover the Aztec, paper, eTicket, mTicket, ToC app, ITSO mess, with some subset of those being available depending on journey, ToC etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railway doesn't want to make railcards available for all, but knows railcards do make money. If they didn't, why do they exist and/or why are they so heavily promoted?

Demographic Railcards exist to segment the market, so you can charge people who can't afford to pay as much less without charging *everyone* less. While they are a bit wider than that, they're analogous to student/elderly discounts in other industries which are very common.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2025 ==

I'm afraid I can't come up with a suitable extension of the analogy to cover the Aztec, paper, eTicket, mTicket, ToC app, ITSO mess, with some subset of those being available depending on journey, ToC etc.

Paracetamol being sold as tablets, caplets, capsules, cough mixture, soluble, with caffeine added...?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I'm afraid I can't come up with a suitable extension of the analogy to cover the Aztec, paper, eTicket, mTicket, ToC app, ITSO mess, with some subset of those being available depending on journey, ToC etc.

Paracetamol being sold as tablets, caplets, capsules, cough mixture, soluble, with caffeine added...?

Doesn't quite work, because those different forms of paracetemol are different products with different benefits, where the same can hardly be said for the different ticket delivery methods.

And also, you are likely to be able to buy all of those forms of paracetemol in Boots. I cannot buy my ticket for my journey in all of those formats - I can get it in some formats for some journeys, and other formats for other journeys with (as a lay consumer) no clear rhyme or reason why.

 

[Sonic1234]

Doesn't quite work, because those different forms of paracetemol are different products with different benefits, where the same can hardly be said for the different ticket delivery methods.

There are different benefits to the different methods, albeit niche ones. For example, Southern allow fee-free refunds on paper tickets (except Advance) before travel, but do not on e-tickets. And if you want to travel from a station run by Overground with minimal fuss, you need paper. Mostly comes down to individual preference though.

I can get it in some formats for some journeys, and other formats for other journeys with (as a lay consumer) no clear rhyme or reason why.

Generally, paper only if your ticket could permit travel on TfL (Underground or Overground) or Merseyrail. GTR are known for being somewhat confused or resistant to e-tickets.

 

[rhizomergence]

the next day, you go to Sainsburys for your weekly shop and the guy at the till tells you that if he checks you out by splitting your items into 6 different transactions instead of 1 you can save £14.10, but he will pocket 15% of what he’s saved you!

 

[Bletchleyite]

the next day, you go to Sainsburys for your weekly shop and the guy at the till tells you that if he checks you out by splitting your items into 6 different transactions instead of 1 you can save £14.10, but he will pocket 15% of what he’s saved you!

While the "pocket 15%" bit isn't the case, it's not at all unusual that splitting into two transactions where you have something like a "buy three get the cheapest free" deal twice results in you saving money, as if you do both in one transaction it's the two cheapest you get free, whereas if you split it you can engineer it so one of the more expensive ones is free as well as the cheapest of the six.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Supermarket analogies are always terrible. I am partial to M&S Diet Pink Lemonade. If I buy a one litre bottle it is £1, if I buy a two litre bottle it is £1.60, but if I buy a 500ml bottle from the fridge in the sandwich section it is £1.80.

How confusing!

When I travel from my home in Scotland to where my mum lives in Wales, split tickets can save over 50%. This is just stupid.

It's only 'stupid' because of the cognitive load required in calculating it.

The exact same principle applies in aviation, where a ticket from (say) Sofia to JFK via Heathrow will often be cheaper than a ticket from Heathrow to JFK. But people generally don't know about it and, even if they do, they can't be chewed flying to Sofia and back to save a few hundred quid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The exact same principle applies in aviation, where a ticket from (say) Sofia to JFK via Heathrow will often be cheaper than a ticket from Heathrow to JFK. But people generally don't know about it and, even if they do, they can't be chewed flying to Sofia and back to save a few hundred quid.

The big difference with aviation is that a connectional short haul flight will typically take three times as long as a direct one (so even through fares by such an itinerary are often cheaper). Whereas with rail there is usually no time penalty, or only a small one, for a split.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The big difference with aviation is that a connectional short haul flight will typically take three times as long as a direct one

Yes, but that wasn't my point: a through ticket from Sofia to Heathrow to JFK will be cheaper than a through ticket just from Heathrow to JFK. Same seat on the same plane, just cheaper.

Of course the aviation industry won't let you 'start short' so you actually have to go to Sofia first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course the aviation industry won't let you 'start short' so you actually have to go to Sofia first.

The railway doesn't want you to on an Advance either, and this exact sort of situation can arise. However if a change of trains is required it's often impossible to enforce that.

 

[wilbers]

I'd much rather get vitamin tablets from Aldi or Lidl, who aren't going to charge £16 a tub and who are also much less likely to have a multibuy offer. I would pay extra to have a sensible price displayed up-front on the shelf-edge ticket, rather than have to jump through hoops before we can get down to a sensible price.

The only multibuy offer I know of in Aldi is a very sensible one - years ago they had single tins of baked beans, and multipacks of 4 tins of baked beans - some bright spark worked out that they could remove a product line by changing the price of the single tins to X for one, or slightly less than 4X for four.

Railway equivalent of that would be a carnet.

 

[Tester]

This is proving to be a very substantial and useful discussion - thank you Hadders!

 

[Krokodil]

You can absolutely take the ‘cognitive load’ out of railway ticketing by using a journey planner TVM or website; just tell it the train time and journey you want and it will give you the price you need to pay for them.

If you want to return you would have to think about when to do so, so you've still got the 'cognitive load'. I would wager that most of the "wrong TOC" tickets I get are people who are travelling back to where they came from.

Though removes your ability to yield manage, and thus increases overcrowding and reduces income.

If one distance based fare was the most profitable way to run transport, the low cost airlines would do it that way (notably it could well be that for short distance local transport given that bus operators tend to do that and don't have peak/off peak differentials). Freddie Laker of course did, but that was back in the days when yield management was much more difficult because the computing just didn't exist, and it was sort-of done by having conditions on differently priced tickets like a mandatory Saturday night away which would be no use for a work trip.

If only public transport was considered a public service rather than something to squeeze every last drop of profit out of.

 

[Bank Foot AM]

I think Thomas Ableman's Boots analogy is quite a good one, if we don't take it too literally. Cognitive effort, jeopardy and arbitrariness might sound a bit buzzwordy, but he's right to identify them as part of the 'customer journey' (sorry, I hate that expression too).

My usual response to complaints that fares are complex is that the network itself is complex and that, actually, the apparent complexities arising from things like the variety of fares, permitted routes and break of journey are very much to the passenger's advantage. We don't want to lose them so we must be careful what we wish for when it comes to simplification.

The point is that in Boots a real live person advised the customer and helpfully informed them of things that they couldn't reasonably be expected to know about. Contrast that with trying to purchase a rail ticket from a website or TVM where the necessary information isn't readily available. How many people are going to look up the restriction codes when offered a choice of two different off-peak fares?

When British Rail rolled out APEX and Advance fares more generally in the 90s, I attended a presentation where the rules for these new tickets were explained to us. At the end of the presentation, there were lots of questions and much scratching of heads. Someone asked how customers were expected to understand the rules around these new ticket types. The answer from the BR chaps was that customers didn't need to understand them, as long as we did. OK, perhaps that was a bit patronising, but fundamentally it was right.

Even now, when faced with a simple choice of Anytime or Off-Peak, many people will choose the higher priced Anytime ticket simply because they don't have even a basic understanding of what restrictions Off-Peak might impose on their journey (potentially, no restriction at all). Similarly, some people will decline a seat reservation with a walk-up ticket in the mistaken belief that it will commit them to a specific train. These are the people who will have found the process of buying a ticket confusing, even intimidating, and will go away unhappy, feeling that they've been overcharged or annoyed that they had to stand when others had seat reservations.

Self-service is fine, in its place, but it doesn't remove the need for knowledgeable people to be on hand to provide customer service (and at stations, I think they should be found in the booking office and not wandering about on the concourse with a tablet, but that's another matter!). Gross over-simplification of fares, which I hope never comes, doesn't remove that need and won't result in more customers having a positive experience.

Someone purchasing their usual day return ticket from a TVM or paying contactless on TfL probably doesn't give it a second thought and can be confident that they've paid the correct fare. An occasional traveller trying to buy a ticket from, say, Salisbury to Forres, will quickly encounter cognitive effort, jeopardy and arbitrariness if they have to do so without assistance. Their experience is unlikely to be positive.