Distance based pricing?

[sheff1]

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?

I answered this question, and many of the others raised on this thread, back in 2010 by explaining how distance based pricing worked elsewhere. I added further detail in 2012 when the suggestion raised its head again.

The answers were basically ignored by most of those posters who clearly have strong antipathy to distance based pricing, whilst a couple 'responded' to things which I had not even stated. Why such antipathy to a pricing model which works in other countries I do not know but, 7 years on, it is obvious that further attempts to explain things will be a waste of time.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

So a longer and less convenient route costs more.

London to Rugby via Northampton costs more than just going straight up the fast line.

Right?

 

[PeterC]

So a longer and less convenient route costs more.

London to Rugby via Northampton costs more than just going straight up the fast line.

Right?

I would imagine that the OP's suggestion of demand based weighting would be expected to cover that. Remember that the weighting could be a plus or minus value.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would imagine that the OP's suggestion of demand based weighting would be expected to cover that. Remember that the weighting could be a plus or minus value.

Then we aren’t on a mileage based system but rather one based on demand. That’s rather like what we have at the moment.

 

[DaiGog]

The moment you deviate from a mileage-based system to account for anything which illustrates one of its shortcomings (such as the fact that different routes between two stations are possible, or plain old demand), it becomes pointless.

The result of a pure mileage-based system would be a lot of very overcrowded trains and a lot of empty ones, as price ceases to be able to be used as a tool for moving people around, stimulating additional demand, and so on. Other countries do indeed price by the mile, and don't have peak/off-peak pricing, but Germany (for example) has the capacity to accommodate the customer travel patterns which this method creates. The UK doesn't.

Why would GWR charge people more to travel from London to Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway (or even Westbury) with a longer journey and a change of trains, than it would on a quicker direct service? You may argue that they wouldn't, as that would be ridiculous, and you'd be right - so they should continue to charge the same fare by any of these permitted routes. The system is therefore not mileage-based any more, so it becomes unworkable.

 

[FenMan]

To continue the £1 per mile example ...

I live in Blackwater and wish to meet a friend in London, so here's a non-exhaustive list of my choices:-
£49 : Blackwater - Reading - Paddington (quickest)
£43 : Blackwater - Guildford - Woking - Waterloo (2nd quickest)
£43 : Blackwater - Wokingham - Ascot - Waterloo
£36 : Blackwater - Farnborough North - walk - Farnborough Main - Waterloo
£37 : Blackwater - North Camp - walk - Ash Vale - Waterloo

If I buy a Travelcard I can also use these routes:-
£60 : Blackwater - Dorking Deepdene - walk - Dorking Main - Victoria
£54 : Blackwater - Redhill - Victoria or London Bridge

I live 3.5 miles from Farnborough Main, a 20 minute cycle ride on the flat, so:-
£33 : Farnborough Main - Waterloo

Given the saving to be made by using Farnborough Main instead of my home station, which route would I choose?

Today there are two prices for Off Peak Day Returns for Blackwater - London Terminals; one priced by GWR , the other by SWR:
£23.40 : Route: Via Guildford/Ascot (SWR)
£23.60 : Route: Any Permitted (GWR)

For comparison, the same tickets for Farnborough Stations i.e. North and Main - London terminals are:-
£23.20 : Route: Not Via Reading (SWR)
£23.60 : Route: Any Permitted (GWR)

SWR also offer more time-restricted Super Off Peak tickets, GWR do not.

 

[mmh]

I don't think distance based pricing would work very well, but there being multiple permitted routes between pairs of stations isn't a problem that couldn't be easily be covered. Calculate the distances as the crow flies, so to answer an earlier example Sheffield to York would be about 42 miles, regardless of the route actually taken.

Then you could remove all restricted route fares, which would be a pretty sizeable simplification.

 

[yorkie]

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.

Indeed; the idea that mileage based pricing removes anomalies is quite simply wrong.

Yes, we can move to mileage based pricing if an acceptable pricing model can be found (I am yet to see a comprehensive set of proposals that would be acceptable to all parties) but it will not prevent anomalies.

Any move away from market based pricing will not be sanctioned by the DfT anyway so it aint gonna happen, so it's purely theoretical.

Then we aren’t on a mileage based system but rather one based on demand. That’s rather like what we have at the moment.

Exactly!

I answered this question, and many of the others raised on this thread, back in 2010 by explaining how distance based pricing worked elsewhere. I added further detail in 2012 when the suggestion raised its head again.

I am not saying the concept is unworkable in principle; I am saying it is not going to be politically acceptable to all parties and it will not prevent anomalies.

We expose the the shortcomings of such a system every time it is proposed.

Either the exact detail turns out to be lacking or, if divulged, exposes the proposals to problems the person who made the suggestion did not foresee.

The answers were basically ignored by most of those posters who clearly have strong antipathy to distance based pricing, whilst a couple 'responded' to things which I had not even stated. Why such antipathy to a pricing model which works in other countries I do not know but, 7 years on, it is obvious that further attempts to explain things will be a waste of time.

A return from Sherburn to Whitby is a round trip of 197.75 miles costs £16.80 for a day return, which works out as 8.5 pence per mile.

I am more than happy to have a mileage based system based on 8.5 pence per mile for all journeys.

I'd be happy for such as system to be priced based on the shortest route, and for all currently permitted longer routes to be the same price. Or alternatively I'd be happy if Guards were to spend the entire journey calculating whether or not someone has the correct mileage paid for, and if not charging an excess fare, providing the excess was the difference between the appropriate fares at no additional penalty to customers (as at present).

However I also know there is no chance of that actually happening.

The moment you deviate from a mileage-based system to account for anything which illustrates one of its shortcomings (such as the fact that different routes between two stations are possible, or plain old demand), it becomes pointless.....

Is absolutely spot on!

 

[mmh]

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.

I don't understand how it could make travelling short cheaper an option, it's impossible to create a shorter route between two points than a straight line?

For Bristol to Taunton you'd want one fare, I doubt many people deliberately choose one way or the other, they just go whichever way the train happens to go.

 

[yorkie]

I don't understand how it could make travelling short cheaper an option, it's impossible to create a shorter route between two points than a straight line?

If you say it's based on "as the crow flies" there will be anomalies galore (Kyle of Lochalsh to Mallaig, anyone?)

If you say it's based on the shortest route, but longer routes are also permitted, this will also create anomalies. York to Moorthorpe direct is 28 miles direct so I would buy that ticket for a journey from Cattlal to Sandal & Agbrigg (40 miles).

So anomalies will still exist, but they will just be different, perhaps more plentiful, and certainly more easily found, than in the current system.

Or you could say that people pay for the route they think they will take and on-board staff come along and charge people the difference in fares for the extra miles at a pro-rata rate. This is going to mean a lot of staff time is spent charging a few pennies extra on low value excess fares, which may not be a productive use of staff time.

For Bristol to Taunton you'd want one fare, I doubt many people deliberately choose one way or the other, they just go whichever way the train happens to go.

Exactly, so it's unlikely that there is going to be a different fare for every single possible route!

 

[Zamracene749]

For those that are genuinely interested in how it works, have a peruse of these pages from a system that actually uses distance based pricing. The most relevant bit is the 'regular ticket' tab.
Of note is that longer distance fares are cheaper per km than short journeys, also that special offers and advance ticketing are all available as well as extensive rover tickets, railcards for heavy users, excellent family leisure tickets etc.
If anybody is in any doubt regarding the complexity of the Czech rail network, I have attached a link to their system map for reference.

When tickets are sold, the general route is clearly printed on them. If an excess is needed, it's quickly worked out by the computerised ticket machines carried by the conductors. The system does have some complications, but they aren't in my opinion even close to the level of oddness that we have. I doubt there are 'Fares Workshops' in the Czech Republic (Czechia?) .

Of course, as Yorkie has rightly stated, applying such a system to the UK will not happen because the administration involved in making such a huge change would be unjustifiable in time and expense!

Anyway, here are the links

https://www.cd.cz/en/typy-jizdenek/vnitrostatni-jizdenky/default.htm

Fare chart- https://www.cd.cz/assets/info/cim-se-ridime/tr-10-zmena-18_priloha-1_cenik-1_cb.pdf

Network map- https://www.cd.cz/jizdni-rad/tratove-jizdni-rady/files/cz-mapacr-171210-01.pdf

No NFM, no routing guide, no arguments! No penalties for leaving the train early, no inconsistent time restrictions, no positive or negative easements to catch public and staff out, if you want to use a longer route you simply pay the difference. Common sense is applied in regard to slight route km variations (eg in a Rotherham Central or Masborough situation). Sadly there are no nice dirt cheap obscure 'permitted routes' for us enthusiasts to enjoy, but the rover and ranger selection more than makes up for that!

I do understand that our railways are often at and over capacity, but I think that stemming demand by raising prices can be applied to any system of fares, also I'm not suggesting that we use these EXACT fares in the UK- our levels of subsidy, wages and expenses would require a rather different £/km figure- don't ask me what that would be because I'm not and never will be party to necessary data to work that one out!

Posted only for interest, any arguments please don't yell at me, email the Czech government and tell them they've got it all wrong lol!

PS the km distances are all listed in the freely available line timetables https://www.cd.cz/jizdni-rad/tratove-jizdni-rady/

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can get some variation while avoiding anomalies by using "tariff kilometres" rather than actual ones. That means you can apply a higher (or lower) number of km (and therefore price) to a section of line between two junctions. For example, you might have a slight premium for the WCML because it's quite fast, or a slight reduction for an obscure branch line due to a poor service, or you might do something like discount the Northampton Loop slightly to stop it costing more than going straight up the WCML and allow tickets to be valid both ways. This doesn't create anomalies per-se, because there isn't a way to avoid it as such, nor to save by buying long or splitting.

The biggest cause of anomalies is peak/off-peak, however you do it. The only real way to avoid that is to remove all restricted walk-up tickets and have discounts as Advances like DB do (with those having a price based on calculation in some way so they are available for all journeys, avoiding that anomaly), but that would not be popular.

 

[WatcherZero]

New Northern franchise with government encouragement had a commitment to a wholesale readjustment of ticket prices to distance pricing to erase the anomalies such as PTE boundary jumps and to bring rural fares closer to urban fares. They did a lot of work in the year after taking over but their finished formal proposal was ultimately rejected by Rail North, the adjustment would have been too painful (50-100% ticket increases on some journeys while rural long distance fares might have fallen 10%), the increases would mainly have fallen on the shortest journeys in the densest urban areas and led to a massive increase in season fares for mature commuter lines driving people back to cars to reach work.

 

[gazthomas]

I would imagine that the OP's suggestion of demand based weighting would be expected to cover that. Remember that the weighting could be a plus or minus value.

Exactly that, thank you

 

[yorkie]

Exactly that, thank you

Will we get to see examples of how this would work in practice? Perhaps we can start with seeing what the rates would be for the possible routes between York & Sheffield?

 

[gazthomas]

Will we get to see examples of how this would work in practice? Perhaps we can start with seeing what the rates would be for the possible routes between York & Sheffield?

Can you share me the current options and I’ll go to work on that! I accept that multiple routes, ORCATS, etc. create lots of complexity!

 

[alistairlees]

Can you share me the current options and I’ll go to work on that! I accept that multiple routes, ORCATS, etc. create lots of complexity!

You can see the fares here: http://www.brfares.com/#expert?orig=YRK&dest=SHF

There are three routes:
- via Leeds, just over 64 miles, direct XC every hour, also other opportunities but with a change
- via Doncaster, 51 miles, also direct XC every hour, also other opportunities but with a change
- via Pontefract Baghill, just over 46 miles, just two (stopping) Northern trains a day. Nothing on Sundays though.

There's a few other permitted routes (to the best of my knowledge and without checking), but let's stick with the three above.

 

[yorkie]

Yes if we start with those three, once we know the formula and figures, we can then work out journeys for other permitted routes such as via Harrogate, Barnsley etc, and for journeys between intermediate stations.

 

[sheff1]

When looking at a distance based pricing system you do not need to be concerned by "permitted routes". The fare for any route required by a passenger can be calculated. So, for example, if someone wants to go from York to Sheffield via Manchester they can purchase a through ticket to cover that journey.

It is also important to remember that there is no 'fare per mile/kilometre', as is clear from the Czech table linked to by beermaddavep. That lists the fare for 1km as 11, the fare for 2km is 12, for 10km it is 24 and for 100km it is 147 and so on. Such a feature is found in all distance pricing regimes I have ever seen*, and is something which always seems to be overlooked by people who demand to know a price per mile/km.

There is usually a maximum fare as well. In the Czech case this maximum applies for any journey of 600km or more - I have no idea what the longest possible rail journey in that country is.

* As an aside, in many regimes distances are banded so that the fare for any journey of between, for example, 110 & 120 km, or 200 & 220 km etc is the same.

 

[yorkie]

So you need to print on the ticket the list of stations the passenger has to travel through?

So if I want to do York to Sheffield, I have to state which way I am going and then the fare gets calculated. So there will be dozens of potential fares.

If I take a different route, the Guard will do a journey plan comparing my actual itinerary vs intended itinerary, it will come up with a price, and the Guard will then ask me to pay the difference in fares, right?

 

[Clip]

So you need to print on the ticket the list of stations the passenger has to travel through?

So if I want to do York to Sheffield, I have to state which way I am going and then the fare gets calculated. So there will be dozens of potential fares.

If I take a different route, the Guard will do a journey plan comparing my actual itinerary vs intended itinerary, it will come up with a price, and the Guard will then ask me to pay the difference in fares, right?

You can do away with all those complications by only having one permitted route between two points - not that this would be popular on here but would solve the issue you bring up

 

[yorkie]

You can do away with all those complications by only having one permitted route between two points - not that this would be popular on here but would solve the issue you bring up

How could that work with York to Sheffield?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you need to print on the ticket the list of stations the passenger has to travel through?

That's sort of what DB do. Obviously you only need to state it where there is a possibility to go a different way. So for Rugby to London Terminals you would only need to state via Northampton or not via Northampton[1], there are no other valid variations on that one.

[1] That one raises a nice example of where there isn't a station on a given line of route. There's also potentially London Overground, but removing that validity would annoy almost nobody.

 

[Clip]

How could that work with York to Sheffield?

As I said, by only having one permitted route available.

 

[najaB]

So why doesn’t it get implemented? If it is so simple...

It is not.

 

[yorkie]

As I said, by only having one permitted route available.

This is hard work! So what route would that be? via Leeds? via Doncaster? via Pontefract?

 

[Clip]

This is hard work! So what route would that be? via Leeds? via Doncaster? via Pontefract?

Its not that hard. Pick one route and thats it. Any other route will then need a combination of tickets.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Llanigraham]

As far as I can see, and from what is being said here, all this is doing is actually making ticket buying MORE complicated, and potentially MORE expensive!

When I buy a ticket from Caersws to London, I have can be offered at least 4 different routes, and 4 different operators, so I fail to see how any of the proposals are going to help me.

 

[yorkie]

Its not that hard. Pick one route and thats it. Any other route will then need a combination of tickets.

Pretty simple really.

So we pick Doncaster, and now any passengers who travel with Leeds need to buy.. new tickets? not even an excess?

It would mean that the only websites selling fares for affected journeys would be sites like Trainsplit.

Do you really think this is a viable option?

As far as I can see, and from what is being said here, all this is doing is actually making ticket buying MORE complicated, and potentially MORE expensive!

Yes, exactly. A move away from market-based pricing might make things 'fairer' but it will not be simpler and it could result in a huge amount of staff time being wasted selling low value excess fares because someone happened to go via Leeds instead of via Doncaster.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its not that hard. Pick one route and thats it. Any other route will then need a combination of tickets.

Pretty simple really.

Given that the route between some origins and some destinations is somewhat arbitrary (try, for example, anywhere towards the northern end of the Merseyrail Ormskirk Line to Wigan or Manchester, where there are about 5 or 6 Permitted Routes, all of them reasonable, and most of them have a chance at being quicker at any given randomly selected time of day), there is nothing particularly simple about it.

To be honest, if you were going for that level of simplification, it might actually be less baffling to go for "one ticket per vehicle journey" in the manner of buses with everything priced as singles and no break of journey[1]. Then you just put together the relevant combination for whatever route or journey you wish to take.

[1] On the BR model i.e. "once you leave the station your ticket ceases to hold any value", not the modern-day slightly bizarre version where one is charged extra for taking a shorter journey on some occasions.