DfT West Coast Vision

[LNW-GW Joint]

Among a raft of franchise documents issued by the DfT today, there is this on their vision for the next ICWC franchise (from 2017/18).
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1525/intercity-west-coast-overview-vision.pdf

It's intended as a guide to bidders for the new franchise, and is full of pretty charts and pictures.
But it says very little in operational terms.
I did spot a reference to 140mph running (not mentioned in the Network Rail input!).
Also this remark about split ticketing:

We also expect the future operator to make use of unregulated fares to tackle anomalies such as removing split ticketing.

But no mention of expanded services, new destinations or more rolling stock.
It suggests the DfT wants to mark time until HS2 arrives.

 

[yorkie]

If the unfairly high and poor value fares were to fall to reasonable levels, they wouldn't have mentioned "unregulated fares"

So it's reasonable to conclude that the more sensibly priced reasonable fares are going to have to go up, so that people making the longer distance journeys can no longer pay a sensible fare by purchasing a combination of reasonably priced tickets.

Great! :roll:

 

[Carntyne]

Looks like they may be asked to introduce an ICWC brand rather than an operators brand too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone noticed the error in the map? Kirkham and Poulton are not Network Rail stations!

Also amused by the picture on page 22 clearly showing a PIS display with a faulty line.

 

[Simon11]

Also Wellington, Telford Central

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that the Euston scrum gets a specific mention. Could we see a solution to this?

Mentions of split ticketing are interesting. I don't see how a TOC could solve it without primary legislation/a change to the NRCoC banning it, and even then it would not be able to be stopped if the passenger changed trains (the obvious technical way to stop it is some form of "compostage", i.e. requiring passengers to activate their ticket in a manner not possible onboard). But it almost reads to suggest that the TOC should tackle it by cutting unregulated fares.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Anyone noticed the error in the map? Kirkham and Poulton are not Network Rail stations!

Nor are Telford or Wellington!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly also reads that they should develop a brand that isn't tied to them, perhaps a little like gWr. Was that driven by the DfT rather than First? Or do they just think it's a good idea?

Personally, I'd like to see a National Rail brand across the network instead, if we are going to use that.

 

[najaB]

If the unfairly high and poor value fares were to fall to reasonable levels, they wouldn't have mentioned "unregulated fares"

So it's reasonable to conclude that the more sensibly priced reasonable fares are going to have to go up, so that people making the longer distance journeys can no longer pay a sensible fare by purchasing a combination of reasonably priced tickets.

Great! :roll:

I read it the other way. Since split ticketing is a right enshrined in the NRCoC and regulated fares are - well, regulated - the only way that a single TOC can remove the benefit of split ticketing is by making their unregulated fares cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, I'd like to see a National Rail brand across the network instead, if we are going to use that.

That would remove the appearance that there is competition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I read it the other way. Since split ticketing is a right enshrined in the NRCoC and regulated fares are - well, regulated - the only way that a single TOC can remove the benefit of split ticketing is by making their unregulated fares cheaper.

A TOC can also reduce regulated fares, they just can't increase them. ISTR they can increase them back to the regulated rate for a specified period of time after which the new lower fare becomes regulated, but I can't remember.

That would remove the appearance that there is competition.

Removing this fallacy would in my view be sensible, of course. On-rail competition is a myth for the vast majority of journeys, and as a distinct National Rail brand would logically come with some train categories (InterCity, regional express, local etc), odd cases like LM vs. VT could be handled by having InterCity only, or local only, tickets. And Advances would continue as they are.

 

[najaB]

A TOC can also reduce regulated fares, they just can't increase them. ISTR they can increase them back to the regulated rate for a specified period of time after which the new lower fare becomes regulated, but I can't remember.

I know, but reducing the regulated fare would increase the benefits of split ticketing, not reduce them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know, but reducing the regulated fare would increase the benefits of split ticketing, not reduce them.

Depends on the situation. If a London-Manchester SVR is £100, and a London-MKC one and MKC-Manchester one £20 and £60 accordingly, reducing the regulated £100 ticket to £80 would remove the anomaly (but may of course add another; the only way to remove all of them is prescribed-route kilometric ticketing).

 

[ivanhoe]

Depends on the situation. If a London-Manchester SVR is £100, and a London-MKC one and MKC-Manchester one £20 and £60 accordingly, reducing the regulated £100 ticket to £80 would remove the anomaly (but may of course add another; the only way to remove all of them is prescribed-route kilometric ticketing).

As a matter of interest, how do they measure prescribed kilo metric ticketing. Is it by 'how the crow flys' or do they they use actual route distances which of course is flawed when there are are at least three different ways of getting from say Loughborough to Liverpool, a journey I do quite often. I'd be interested to know.

 

[Class 170101]

Would still be difficult how would you regulate London to Birmingham journeys run by different operators?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As a matter of interest, how do they measure prescribed kilo metric ticketing. Is it by 'how the crow flys' or do they they use actual route distances which of course is flawed when there are are at least three different ways of getting from say Loughborough to Liverpool, a journey I do quite often. I'd be interested to know.

Traditionally the measure was railway miles.
But there have been anomalies ever since there was more than one route between two points.
As an example, the fare from the south to Liverpool via Runcorn was the same as the older route via Earlestown, despite being 8 miles shorter.
The higher mileage rate was supposed to pay for the bridge over the Mersey.
There were many of these arrangements.

BR set the fare for London-Manchester to be the same via either the WCML, MML or GCML, including via many other variations (via Birmingham, Nottingham, Stoke etc), despite the quite large variations of mileage.

Until the 60s BR used to publish a fares table which was a single page in the timetable.
You just looked up the mileage (from the timetable) and it gave you the 2nd class single fare.
This was the official rate, and tapered slightly for longer journeys.
All the other fares (1st class, return, seasons etc) could be calculated from this fare.
Many European railways still use such a system.
BR stopped doing this after the LMR electrification, and basically adopted market pricing (ie higher fares on the upgraded WCML) to fund the investment.
That was then adopted over all the main lines as they were upgraded or got new trains.

 

[WatcherZero]

But no mention of expanded services, new destinations or more rolling stock.
It suggests the DfT wants to mark time until HS2 arrives.

Probably a good thing, post HS2 phase 1 will be totally different franchise and if any more long distance stock was ordered it would be superfluous when the route shifts more towards increased commuter/smaller stations focus. Next bidder would probably be required to do the ground work to prepare for a post HS2 successor too, same way Northern was required to manage electrification programs that wouldn't come to fruition till after it ended even before they started running late.

 

[43096]

Personally, I'd like to see a National Rail brand across the network instead, if we are going to use that.

I'd like to see similar, but reflecting different types of service. So different brands for long distance, regional services and London area commuter services. They could be given snappy names like "InterCity", "Regional Railways" and "Network SouthEast"...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Probably a good thing, post HS2 phase 1 will be totally different franchise and if any more long distance stock was ordered it would be superfluous when the route shifts more towards increased commuter/smaller stations focus. Next bidder would probably be required to do the ground work to prepare for a post HS2 successor too, same way Northern was required to manage electrification programs that wouldn't come to fruition till after it ended even before they started running late.

Also, no hint of any remapping of franchise boundaries (eg bringing in TPE Scotland or LM main line to ICWC).
A long way to go till the ITT, of course.

 

[IanXC]

How does the mention of removing split ticketing compare with how Transport Scotland approached this issue?

 

[najaB]

How does the mention of removing split ticketing compare with how Transport Scotland approached this issue?

Have they really made much of an impact? It's still cheaper to split going to Edinburgh or Glasgow from Dundee.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How does the mention of removing split ticketing compare with how Transport Scotland approached this issue?

If they're that bothered about split ticketing, why don't they just change the NRCoC to bar it in the manner the Irish conditions of carriage do? Though compostage would be an effective, practical way of both preventing ticket re-use and stopping split ticketing, would just require investment in some stamping machines.

It's like gig ticket touting in a way. If the Government (or indeed the promoters) really cared about it, they'd mandate names on tickets and check ID.

 

[The Ham]

If they're that bothered about split ticketing, why don't they just change the NRCoC to bar it in the manner the Irish conditions of carriage do? Though compostage would be an effective, practical way of both preventing ticket re-use and stopping split ticketing, would just require investment in some stamping machines.

It's like gig ticket touting in a way. If the Government (or indeed the promoters) really cared about it, they'd mandate names on tickets and check ID.

The problem is there are many people who use split tickets and not always to save money that day. For instance someone with a season ticket may be wanting to go somewhere beyond where their season ticket allows them to go. If you ban split tickets how do you allow for that? If you don't allow for that then you could irk a lot of commuters who then may stop using your trains.

Also how can you tell if some people are split ticketing if they have to change anyway at the split (for instance travelling across London it is often cheaper to split tickets between the two legs than it is to have a ticket all the way through)? Even if the ticket has to be used then all that will happen is you will have people leaving stations to re enter them. Again that will irk people (and not just those that have to do it but also possibly gateline staff who have to let people out and back in again with their cases).

Yes, there is a "problem" with people getting train tickets cheaper if they split. However, in reality is it really very bad? Yes there is some loss of money to the industry (especially if commuters do it) however some people who do it may not otherwise travel by train (i.e. money which the industry wouldn't have otherwise seen and potentially encourages them to use the train for other journeys). Also, on longer distance services, people may be tempted to not split ticket so that they can be sure of staying in the same seat with their seat reservation.

One of the biggest cost savings I've found is pairing anytime tickets with advance tickets (in and then back out of London) where there would appear to be too many advanced tickets (in that they are still on sale the day before travel). As such a simple way to remove that would be for the TOC to reduce the number (or at least increase the price) of the advanced tickets that they sell.

Note, I am not saying that TOC's should do nothing, rather that an outright ban may not be that helpful to the industry.

 

[najaB]

Yes, there is a "problem" with people getting train tickets cheaper if they split. However, in reality is it really very bad?

I don't even see it as a problem. If people are willing to put in the work to find deals, let them have them.

 

[LLivery]

Personally, I'd like to see a National Rail brand across the network instead, if we are going to use that.

I'd like to bring back InterCity, Southern Railway, Great Eastern Railway etc, have a small operated by xxx on the side of the train, and everything linked with the double arrow (displayed everywhere) as one unified system. The branding works for ScotRail, GWR and London Buses. London Overground doesn't even mention operated by MTR/DB/LOROL. Saves millions in re-branding in the long run and no more awful liveries like Northern's 322s!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note, I am not saying that TOC's should do nothing, rather that an outright ban may not be that helpful to the industry.

I agree for the reasons you outline. I just think if they really don't like it, and the DfT agree, there are ways it could be totally banned.

Another way to discourage it (which would also discourage stopping short at a more local station) would be to change the NRCoC such that, for the purposes of onward transport and Delay Repay, a journey is defined as the origin and destination of your currently valid ticket.

 

[najaB]

Another way to discourage it (which would also discourage stopping short at a more local station) would be to change the NRCoC such that, for the purposes of onward transport and Delay Repay, a journey is defined as the origin and destination of your currently valid ticket.

Interesting that you propose removing rights from passengers. Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

 

[WatcherZero]

Reading through you get the distinct impression that the Dft wants to use the franchise as a test bed for HS2 ticketing technology development.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that you propose removing rights from passengers. Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I am not proposing anything, I am just suggesting how it could be achieved if DfT want it.

 

[3141]

Traditionally the measure was railway miles.
But there have been anomalies ever since there was more than one route between two points.

BR set the fare for London-Manchester to be the same via either the WCML, MML or GCML, including via many other variations (via Birmingham, Nottingham, Stoke etc), despite the quite large variations of mileage.

My recollection is that in 1961/62 the fare on the GC route via Sheffield was higher than Manchester Central to St. Pancras or London Road to Euston, which were the same.

I remember travelling overnight from London Road to Marylebone with a ticket that I thought was valid, and at Sheffield Victoria an inspector told me that I'd have to pay an excess because the route I was on was more expensive. My recollection (not precise, after all this time) is that I'd paid 38/6 and had to pay an additional 3 shillings. Those were the days!

 

[HH]

I take the DfT's words to mean they don't have a clue how to fix the problem with split-ticketing, but they hope that bidders will come up with something...

In reality of course only the DfT can fix it, like TS did in Scotland.