Distance based pricing?

[gazthomas]

I’ve recently started travelling more frequently for work. Rail ticketting is a mindfield, as I find some long distance trips to be cheap (for example GWR super off peak fares) and others extorinate (such as the diffential between travelling to the former NSE boundary of Banbury and just beyond at Leamington Spa).

The benefits of split ticketing shows what a mess things are!

So my idea has probably been considered before. Why not a simple scheme of price per mile adjusted using a multiplier for demand. This would result in lower fares for passengers travelling against the peak flow. Busy trains would incur a demand levy which would be easy for people to understand. You could even adjust the price per mile based on travellers age, infermity, loyalty over the previous year, etc.

 

[Hadders]

I'm sure @yorkie will be along shortly to pose a few questions....

 

[gazthomas]

I'm sure @yorkie will be along shortly to pose a few questions....

That puts the fear in me!

 

[island]

This comes up a few times a year.

 

[The Ham]

In not Yorkie, but my first question is what about travel between two stations with two routes with different routes?

For instance Farnborough to Reading is permitted via Wokingham or via Basingstoke, yet the distance are different (the same is true for Farnborough to Guildford which is permitted via Woking or Ash).

 

[gazthomas]

This comes up a few times a year.

So why doesn’t it get implemented? If it is so simple is clearly a market failure that requires intervention to address. As a counterpoint, taxi and Uber charges are quite clear

 

[gazthomas]

In not Yorkie, but my first question is what about travel between two stations with two routes with different routes?

For instance Farnborough to Reading is permitted via Wokingham or via Basingstoke, yet the distance are different (the same is true for Farnborough to Guildford which is permitted via Woking or Ash).

That would be covered by distance?

 

[yorkie]

I’ve recently started travelling more frequently for work. Rail ticketting is a mindfield, as I find some long distance trips to be cheap (for example GWR super off peak fares) and others extorinate (such as the diffential between travelling to the former NSE boundary of Banbury and just beyond at Leamington Spa).

I am unsure what you are materially saying here. But what I can say is that if fares were to somehow become 'fairer' then you would be paying more for the journeys you currently make that are cheap.

The benefits of split ticketing shows what a mess things are!

Split ticketing is always going to be around; there is no way that distance based pricing is going to eliminate it.

Are you expanding the scope of your proposals to eliminate peak pricing, so all fares are Anytime tickets? And to either abolish Railcards or make them all valid at all times? Are you also proposing abolishing Day return fares?

If not, then you are not going to eliminate the main reasons for "splitting"!

So my idea has probably been considered before. Why not a simple scheme of price per mile adjusted using a multiplier for demand.

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples of the fares for the following journeys:

• York to Whitby
• Nottingham to Peterborough
• Leicester to Peterborough
• St Albans to London Thameslink

This would result in lower fares for passengers travelling against the peak flow.

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples for when peak flows are on CrossCountry or TransPennine routes?

I suspect you are going to introduce even more "splitting" opportunities and anomalies if you were to do that.

Busy trains would incur a demand levy which would be easy for people to understand.

How are trains determined to be busy or not? And what would the levy be? Would the levy only apply when the train was busy?

You could even adjust the price per mile based on travellers age, infermity, loyalty over the previous year, etc.

This sounds very complicated. Is this a fares complication exercise?

So why doesn’t it get implemented? If it is so simple is clearly a market failure that requires intervention to address. As a counterpoint, taxi and Uber charges are quite clear

Not comparable; it would not be feasible to charge passengers extra when delays occur!

That would be covered by distance?

How do you calculate the distance? What is the distance used to calculate a York to Sheffield fare?

 

[gazthomas]

I was warned Yorkie! Focus on the positives I’d say!

 

[gazthomas]

Not comparable; it would not be feasible to charge passengers extra when delays occur!

That happens in bad traffic - not the drivers fault

How do you calculate the distance? What is the distance used to calculate a York to Sheffield fare?

The distance travelled? Am I missing something?

I am unsure what you are materially saying here. But what I can say is that if fares were to somehow become 'fairer' then you would be paying more for the journeys you currently make that are cheap.

Split ticketing is always going to be around; there is no way that distance based pricing is going to eliminate it.

Are you expanding the scope of your proposals to eliminate peak pricing, so all fares are Anytime tickets? And to either abolish Railcards or make them all valid at all times? Are you also proposing abolishing Day return fares?

If not, then you are not going to eliminate the main reasons for "splitting"!

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples of the fares for the following journeys:

• York to Whitby
• Nottingham to Peterborough
• Leicester to Peterborough
• St Albans to London Thameslink

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples for when peak flows are on CrossCountry or TransPennine routes?

I suspect you are going to introduce even more "splitting" opportunities and anomalies if you were to do that.

How are trains determined to be busy or not? And what would the levy be? Would the levy only apply when the train was busy?

This sounds very complicated. Is this a fares complication exercise?

More complicated than the mess we have at the moment?

I am unsure what you are materially saying here. But what I can say is that if fares were to somehow become 'fairer' then you would be paying more for the journeys you currently make that are cheap.

Split ticketing is always going to be around; there is no way that distance based pricing is going to eliminate it.

Are you expanding the scope of your proposals to eliminate peak pricing, so all fares are Anytime tickets? And to either abolish Railcards or make them all valid at all times? Are you also proposing abolishing Day return fares?

If not, then you are not going to eliminate the main reasons for "splitting"!

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples of the fares for the following journeys:

• York to Whitby
• Nottingham to Peterborough
• Leicester to Peterborough
• St Albans to London Thameslink

I am not sure how this would work in practice. Can you assist by giving examples for when peak flows are on CrossCountry or TransPennine routes?

I suspect you are going to introduce even more "splitting" opportunities and anomalies if you were to do that.

How are trains determined to be busy or not? And what would the levy be? Would the levy only apply when the train was busy?

This sounds very complicated. Is this a fares complication exercise?

Hardly - you worried about being out of business?

My fear with these suggestions is it becomes a means to attack the OP rather than a “let’s work together to come up with a potential solution”

But which distance, as the two permitted routes are of different lengths?

If it was deemed to be the longer distance then people may buy a ticket from the next station away from their destination or solutions their ticket to ensure they get a cheaper ticket.

If the shorter distance you may encourage people to split their tickets to take advantage of cheaper tickets.

How do you determine that a train is busy? If you join a train that is quiet and then (for instance add it travels towards London in the morning peak) it gets busier, is that a quiet train as that's what it is when you join it or not because it becomes busy later?

Again this could lead to splitting of tickets if it were set as a busy train for the whole way as people would but the cheaper ticket for the quiet section and then but an expensive ticket.

Also, with "busy" factors, dies that mean that I'll pay less in the school holidays when my trains are quieter, or even on a Friday mooring when trains are quieter, but then have to pay more on a Friday evening as the trains are busier?

Solutions not problems please. The latter are easy...

 

[The Ham]

That would be covered by distance?

But which distance, as the two permitted routes are of different lengths?

If it was deemed to be the longer distance then people may buy a ticket from the next station away from their destination or solutions their ticket to ensure they get a cheaper ticket.

If the shorter distance you may encourage people to split their tickets to take advantage of cheaper tickets.

How do you determine that a train is busy? If you join a train that is quiet and then (for instance add it travels towards London in the morning peak) it gets busier, is that a quiet train as that's what it is when you join it or not because it becomes busy later?

Again this could lead to splitting of tickets if it were set as a busy train for the whole way as people would but the cheaper ticket for the quiet section and then but an expensive ticket.

Also, with "busy" factors, dies that mean that I'll pay less in the school holidays when my trains are quieter, or even on a Friday mooring when trains are quieter, but then have to pay more on a Friday evening as the trains are busier?

 

[gazthomas]

Airlines know what their demand on a given route is and price accordingly. I know railways have more stops but it could be made to work as a measure of demand - class 700s claim to show loadings

 

[The Ham]

My fear with these suggestions is it becomes a means to attack the OP rather than a “let’s work together to come up with a potential solution”

We are working together, we're stress testing your plan to make sure that it is fully worked through.

 

[yorkie]

I was warned Yorkie! Focus on the positives I’d say!

But can you answer the questions? Then we can make an informed decision as to whether it is positive or not.

That happens in bad traffic - not the drivers fault

Again this is not comparable. It is not necessarily the train companies' fault (and certainly not the train drivers fault in 99.999% of cases) when rail delays occur either!

The distance travelled? Am I missing something?

So how do you measure the distance travelled from York to Sheffield? Do you have a multitude of different options? Do I pay less if I go via Pontefract? Is it most expensive to go via Harrogate, Leeds and Barnsley?

More complicated than the mess we have at the moment?

It is starting to sound like it, but if you give us examples, we can work that out for ourselves.

Hardly - you worried about being out of business?

No. This is not going to happen. If the system is changed, I will just learn the new system anyway.

Airlines know what their demand on a given route is and price accordingly. I know railways have more stops but it could be made to work as a measure of demand - class 700s claim to show loadings

This is called market based pricing. The rail industry currently deploys market based pricing. This is different to distance based pricing.

Solutions not problems please. The latter are easy...

The onus is on you to flesh out your 'solutions'.

You are the one who has presented apparent 'problems' with the current system (though there is no evidence that any of the apparent issues you cite with the current system are actually a material problem) so if you wish to provide us with a 'solution', we are all ears.

So far there is no specification for any 'solution'.

I have no idea what fares you are proposing for any of the journeys I have mentioned above, and until I know what the proposed fares are, I remain sceptical.

 

[telstarbox]

There are at least three permitted routes between London and Ashford Kent, and at least four between London and Dartford - which one would you use for the fare?

 

[Silver Cobra]

Here's an interesting example. When travelling between Great Yarmouth and Norwich, the hourly service largely runs via Acle, but a few journeys per day are via Reedham. The Reedham route is approximately 2 miles longer than via Acle. Should a passenger who travels between Great Yarmouth and Norwich be charged more for using a service that runs via Reedham rather than via Acle?

 

[gazthomas]

If you go 10 miles you pay for 10 miles. If you go 20 miles you pay for 20 miles. What’s difficult about that? I appreciate it relies on eveyone having GPS tracking, but you could develop smartcards to do this.

It always fall down into the “status quo : too difficult” category.

The reality is we’re dealing with a market failure.

 

[yorkie]

If you go 10 miles you pay for 10 miles. If you go 20 miles you pay for 20 miles. What’s difficult about that? I appreciate it relies on eveyone having GPS tracking, but you could develop smartcards to do this.

It always fall down into the “status quo : too difficult” category.

The reality is we’re dealing with a market failure.

OK so I believe you are telling me that I will have to specify the precise route I am taking, so whether or not I am travelling via Harrogate or not, via Leeds or not, via Barnsley or Moorthorpe, or via Doncaster and whether or not I deviate via Rotherham Central.

How will you print that information on the ticket?

If this relies solely on smart cards, it aint gonna happen because smart cards are old hat. The new system will be barcode based.

How can, say, Trainline retail tickets for one -off journeys on smart cards?

 

[gazthomas]

OK so I believe you are telling me that I will have to specify the precise route I am taking, so whether or not I am travelling via Harrogate or not, via Leeds or not, via Barnsley or Moorthorpe, or via Doncaster and whether or not I deviate via Rotherham Central.

How will you print that information on the ticket?

. ,,.,,,

 

[yorkie]

Does it matter?

If the exact route taken does not matter, you need to tell us what the mileage for York to Sheffield is.

 

[gazthomas]

Simple - you buy a ticket saying you’re going 20 miles - you do 40 you pay the difference

 

[yorkie]

Simple - you buy a ticket saying you’re going 20 miles - you do 40 you pay the difference

So everyone doing York to Sheffield buys a 46 1/2 mile ticket, and anyone who uses CrossCountry or goes via Harrogate or Barnsley etc is asked to pay for a few extra miles as an excess fare by the Guard?

 

[gazthomas]

So everyone doing York to Sheffield buys a 46 1/2 mile ticket, and anyone who uses CrossCountry or goes via Harrogate or Barnsley etc is asked to pay for a few extra miles as an excess fare by the Guard?

In this instance a cap could be applied?

Why are you so anti the suggestion? As a mod you should be impartial. Come up with a more equitable approach

 

[yorkie]

In this instance a cap could be applied?

OK so York to Sheffield is 46 1/2 miles even if you travel via Harrogate, Leeds, Barnsley etc.

In that case, if my journey is from Hammerton to Sheffield I will purchase a York to Sheffield ticket and start short at Hammerton.

Under your system, York to Swinton is priced at 36 miles and York to Moorthorpe is priced at 28 miles, is that correct? And in both cases I can take a longer permitted route and not pay any extra?

Why are you so anti the suggestion?

I'm asking for the detail. If it's a serious proposal, the detail has to be there, surely?

As a mod you should be impartial. Come up with a more equitable approach

I am doing no moderating whatsoever on this thread and I am certainly not making any accusation of any rules being breached. I am just seeking knowledge on how the proposed system will work in practice.

If a system was introduced whereby the shortest route determined the price, and the price per mile was cheap, and the passenger can take any currently permitted route at no extra, and the customer is entitled to break their journey, then it sounds like a fantastic system to me as I can make use of anomalies all over the place to obtain incredibly cheap travel Unfortunately the DfT would never allow such as system.

 

[pdeaves]

If you go 10 miles you pay for 10 miles. If you go 20 miles you pay for 20 miles. What’s difficult about that?

The point is, we have a complex network that isn't neatly laid out on a simple mathematical pattern. Are you suggesting that for journeys with a choice of route, the traveller must decide in advance what route they want and stick to it? There are multiple journey opportunities between most major places. If the traveller had to decide which route to take it would make life more, not less, complicated. It would remove many of the network benefits and could make multiple journeys per hour/day turn into only one or two. In the event of delay or some other reason, the Edinburgh-London passenger (for example) wouldn't be able to turn up and take either east or west coast lines as may be convenient, or get as far as York and hit delays and decide because trains are running that way to go via Sheffield, for example.

How would your system deal with Bristol to Taunton? Separate prices depending on whether your train called at Weston super Mare or not? Mileage-based only really works on star-shaped networks or very simple ones (and many tram and bus networks chose zonal fares instead, not mileage based!).

If you define each journey by distance measured on a map in a straight line then this will create a load of different anomalies making split ticketing (or 'travelling short' options) desirable.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

For ease of this argument I will assume £1 / mile and a single journey. So, if a punter turns up at Leamington and wishes to go to Birmingham, they either then pay £28 to go via Coventry, £24 if they get the other New St service an hour via Dorridge, or £22 if they jump on Chiltern to Moor St, but then £23 if they decide to stay on a stop further to Snow Hill. As things stand they can currently turn up and get one ticket for one price that allows them to undertake whichever of the above four options they wish.

Further, what happens under distance based pricing with Tocs like Chiltern? New St to Euston and Moor St to Marylebone are practically identical in length, yet the former is considerably quicker, therefore everyone will just flock to the West Coast. Should Chiltern just give up and turn everything at Warwick Parkway?

 

[telstarbox]

This system would also hand nearly all the London - Scotland market to the airlines. The point being that rail is part of the oveover transport market (including the private car) and needs to compete accordingly.

 

[telstarbox]

... and the costs of running a section of railway are not proportional to the number of passenger miles in any case.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Keeping the Chiltern theme going, how about London to Aylesbury? The route via Amersham is 37.75 miles and that via High Wycombe is 43.5 miles. Start from Baker Street (Met) rather than Marylebone and it becomes 60.94km (around 38 miles).

Or how about London to Banbury? You now have the option of Paddington - Oxford - Banbury (86.25 miles), Marylebone - Banbury direct (68.75 miles), or Marylebone - Oxford - Banbury (89.25 miles).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

BR (and its private predecessors) had a mileage-based fare table, tapering a bit at the higher end. 1d a mile 2nd class and all that.
However, they also had grouping of stations, so that eg London-Manchester was the same fare whether you went via Crewe, Stoke, Derby or Woodhead, despite their different mileages.
So the mileage system was never exact, just a guide.
There were other anomalies, like the shorter London-Runcorn-Liverpool being the same fare as the longer London-Warrington-Liverpool, to pay for the bridge at Runcorn.
BR broke the (rough) mileage connection in the late 60s in order to raise WCML fares to pay for the electrification and faster journeys.
That approach was then adopted wherever major upgrades took place (eg introduction of HSTs, opening HS1 etc).
There are many reasons why a flat mileage system is inappropriate.
Another is charging for different quality of service (local stopper versus non-stop express, or Pacer versus HST).