Distance based pricing?

[Bletchleyite]

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?

One ticket per vehicle journey is certainly viable; it's what is done in a good many countries of the world (and if the only splits you had to consider were the changes of train, it's not a complex problem to sell them; after all just about all the third party airline ticketing sites can do that, as can Loco2). However, in that form I wouldn't really support it here.

But one way to make this sort of thing more viable would be that the relevant combination would be issued on one ticket, and could be traded in against any other combination with the same origin and destination - a bit like an excess.

 

[LuSiVe]

Presumable you'll be banning breaks of journey on these tickets? Otherwise Chesterfield - Mansfield is going to make a whole lot of other journeys pretty cheap?

 

[Clip]

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?

Yes youve got it!! See,simple.

Never said it was viable and i did stress in my very first post that it wouldnt go down well on here but thats exactly what picking ONE route would do.

 

[najaB]

These options (a) reduce customer rights; and (b) make a lot of journeys more expensive - are you sure you guys don't work for RDG?

 

[Bletchleyite]

These options (a) reduce customer rights; and (b) make a lot of journeys more expensive - are you sure you guys don't work for RDG?

I don't have to work for RDG to think the existing system is cack handed and in need of significant simplification, which cannot come without disadvantaging some people.

 

[yorkie]

The proposals put forward, such as making people purchase a long combination of fares, or restricting rights, do not make things "simple" at all.

The current system is actually much more simple than any of the suggestions being trotted out.

The idea that Train Managers will have to go measuring mileages and issuing low value excess fares to a high proportion of passengers is just simply not viable.

And the idea that it would be remotely feasible to move away from market based pricing completely appears to have been abandoned by many of the people who promote mileage based systems; they mostly admit that the rate per mile would vary depending on whether it's a branch line or a mainline.

If you end up with a string of "splits" some people would not argue that is "simple" while if you print a string of via points, then we are going to need huge tickets for that, and I still don't see how that has any tangible benefit for anyone.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don't have to work for RDG to think the existing system is cack handed and in need of significant simplification, which cannot come without disadvantaging some people.

But all the proposals so far put forward do NOT make the system any simpler, and surely if you want people to use the train you dont make it MORE expensive?

And funnily enough most of my friends who do travel by train don't find the system "cack handed"; they either book on-line and get their card tickets sent to them, or they get in touch with a member here and get him to get their tickets.

 

[Clip]

These options (a) reduce customer rights; and (b) make a lot of journeys more expensive - are you sure you guys don't work for RDG?

I'm well aware that this would reduce passenger rights and no I don't work for rdg.

The question put to me was between sheff and York no more no less. I think I answered it perfectly first time round and added that it wouldn't go down well on here. I'm not sure how what I wrote in answer to the question has been so hard to understand

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure how what I wrote in answer to the question has been so hard to understand

My comment wasn't aimed at you (which is why I didn't quote you), apologies if you read it that way.

 

[evil_hippo]

My two cents:

To make fares more consistent without harming any users would require additional subsidies and capacity enhancements in order to feasibly bring all fares down to the cheapest rate (generally meaning singles at half the cost of split SDR/CDRs for that route).

Even then, it would probably not quite be distance based, but rather based upon a complex nation-wide matrix of zones designed to minimise anomalies.

This would all be very desirable. It would improve lives and make British society more equitable. It would also make simple nationwide smart ticketing possible. These are things we should all be in favour of.

However, it would require a huge political commitment to public transport. To get there is more a political than a technical matter.

 

[Clip]

My comment wasn't aimed at you (which is why I didn't quote you), apologies if you read it that way.

it was the 'you guys' bit that I was going by even though you didn't quote me but no worries.

The idea that Train Managers will have to go measuring mileages and issuing low value excess fares to a high proportion of passengers is just simply not viable.
.

Who has said that train managers would have to do that - from looking at the thread it has only been you who has raised this point as well as you mentioning excesses which they could simply do away with too - again not what I would want but if they really stripped it down to the basics then its one route for one through ticket and any deviation off route would then require single leg pricing and no excess no nothing so no one of this imaginary measuring mileages you speak of

 

[Llanigraham]

Who has said that train managers would have to do that - from looking at the thread it has only been you who has raised this point as well as you mentioning excesses which they could simply do away with too - again not what I would want but if they really stripped it down to the basics then its one route for one through ticket and any deviation off route would then require single leg pricing and no excess no nothing so no one of this imaginary measuring mileages you speak of

So how does that make it simpler, easier or no more expensive for the passenger?
How would it work getting on at an unmanned, non-machine equipped station?
And define "route"? As I have said, if I want to go from Caersws to London there are at least 4 different routes I can be offered; which one will be correct by your method?

 

[Clip]

So how does that make it simpler, easier or no more expensive for the passenger?
How would it work getting on at an unmanned, non-machine equipped station?
And define "route"? As I have said, if I want to go from Caersws to London there are at least 4 different routes I can be offered; which one will be correct by your method?

Once again as I cant believe I'm having to repeat myself here - you pick one route for a through ticket as I first described when I first answered the Sheff - York question and anything else will need multiple leg tickets.

I made no comment on anything else apart from that so if you cant see how simple it is to pick one route for one through ticket then I don't see how my replying anymore is ever going to make it easier for you to understand.

 

[Llanigraham]

Once again as I cant believe I'm having to repeat myself here - you pick one route for a through ticket as I first described when I first answered the Sheff - York question and anything else will need multiple leg tickets.

I made no comment on anything else apart from that so if you cant see how simple it is to pick one route for one through ticket then I don't see how my replying anymore is ever going to make it easier for you to understand.

But you are just making it MORE complicated saying you have to choose a route!

Fine if you are a railway anorak, but 99% of passengers are NOT that, so how do they decide on their best route?
As per my example, there are 4 different routes I am offered every time I buy between Caersws and London:
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change to Virgin - Euston.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - Woverhampton, change - Stafford, change - Euston.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change to Cross County - London.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change and walk to Moor St, - Marylebone.
You tell me which is better?
Some are faster, some are easier, some are cheaper.
How is that simpler?

 

[najaB]

Once again as I cant believe I'm having to repeat myself here - you pick one route for a through ticket as I first described when I first answered the Sheff - York question and anything else will need multiple leg tickets.

I think everyone gets that, the question is how is that better for the passenger than the current system. That question isn't aimed at you though as I understand you aren't promoting that system, just exploring how it could work.

 

[Llanigraham]

Shock, horror

Looking for next month, and dependent on times, I've been offered a FIFTH route!
Caersws - Shrewsbury, change to Virgin - Euston.

 

[6Gman]

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.

Southport - Blackpool would be a bargain!

And would my Blaenau Ffestiniog - Porthmadog ticket (12 miles?) be valid via Chester, Shrewsbury and Machynlleth?

 

[6Gman]

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

So Crewe - Southport (usually faster via Wigan, but more frequent via Liverpool) would be valid via which route?

 

[Clip]

But you are just making it MORE complicated saying you have to choose a route!

Fine if you are a railway anorak, but 99% of passengers are NOT that, so how do they decide on their best route?
As per my example, there are 4 different routes I am offered every time I buy between Caersws and London:
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change to Virgin - Euston.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - Woverhampton, change - Stafford, change - Euston.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change to Cross County - London.
Caersws - Shrewsbury - B'ham New St, change and walk to Moor St, - Marylebone.
You tell me which is better?
Some are faster, some are easier, some are cheaper.
How is that simpler?

How is it more complicated by the railway picking one route out of all of those above to issue a single through ticket for that journey? I'm struggling to understand how that is not SIMPLE for you to understand without me being accused of being rude or sarcastic?

You are the one who has introduced complications - I never did. go read back and then try and understand where I am coming from as I seem to be repeating myself here and more and more things are now being added into the equation which were not part of the original question which I answered already.

Its probably worth pointing out that 99% of passengers probably don't even know about multiple routes their tickets *could* take them through as they just want to get where they are going to in the quickest amount of time at the time of their departure.

I think everyone gets that, the question is how is that better for the passenger than the current system. That question isn't aimed at you though as I understand you aren't promoting that system, just exploring how it could work.

As you can see from above najab not everyone gets that at all it appears.

 

[yorkie]

How is it more complicated by the railway picking one route out of all of those above to issue a single through ticket for that journey? I'm struggling to understand how that is not SIMPLE for you to understand without me being accused of being rude or sarcastic?

You are the one who has introduced complications - I never did. go read back and then try and understand where I am coming from as I seem to be repeating myself here and more and more things are now being added into the equation which were not part of the original question which I answered already.

I'm sorry but I can't really make any sense out of any of this.

Its probably worth pointing out that 99% of passengers probably don't even know about multiple routes their tickets *could* take them through as they just want to get where they are going to in the quickest amount of time at the time of their departure.

Exactly; and at present for most journeys (and there is no reason why this can't be extended to almost all journeys) a passenger can buy a ticket that is valid "by any permitted route"; for all reasonable routes to be permitted, and for journey planners to offer appropriate itineraries and the passengers then travel by those itineraries without worrying that a Guard, Ticket Examiner or RPI may investigate whether or not they are travelling a few miles longer than a stipulated route and may therefore be asked to pay more because the trains they took happened to go a few miles longer than the shortest route.

Rather than try to invent a whole new system, why not ensure that reasonable routes are permitted routes in the current system? That would be far simpler!

 

[Llanigraham]

How is it more complicated by the railway picking one route out of all of those above to issue a single through ticket for that journey? I'm struggling to understand how that is not SIMPLE for you to understand without me being accused of being rude or sarcastic?

You suggested that the passenger would be offered a single ticket for ONE route and that all other routes would get multiple tickets. I have given you an example of a same priced journey between two centres that has 5 different routes. So which route gets the single ticket? Why is your particular route chosen? Has the passengers wishes been taken into account? Your "method" is NOT making it simpler.

You are the one who has introduced complications - I never did. go read back and then try and understand where I am coming from as I seem to be repeating myself here and more and more things are now being added into the equation which were not part of the original question which I answered already.

So pointing out a real lfe situation is "introducing complications"! Really?
Perhaps what I have shown is that your simplistic idea does not work and certainly does not make life simpler in the real world.

Its probably worth pointing out that 99% of passengers probably don't even know about multiple routes their tickets *could* take them through as they just want to get where they are going to in the quickest amount of time at the time of their departure.

Then I suggest you are incorrect. As I said, putting my journey into at least 3 different ticket selling web sites ends up giving you a choce of routes between the stations I have given. I even get asked what route I want to take when I buy those tickets at Machynlleth station, and Gareth on here has also asked me the same question.

 

[Clip]

I'm sorry but I can't really make any sense out of any of this.

I think you can but you just don't want to because you don't agree with it - in fact neither do I but I was only proposing a solution to what was said couldn't be done.

Exactly; and at present for most journeys (and there is no reason why this can't be extended to almost all journeys) a passenger can buy a ticket that is valid "by any permitted route"; for all reasonable routes to be permitted, and for journey planners to offer appropriate itineraries and the passengers then travel by those itineraries without worrying that a Guard, Ticket Examiner or RPI may investigate whether or not they are travelling a few miles longer than a stipulated route and may therefore be asked to pay more because the trains they took happened to go a few miles longer than the shortest route.

Rather than try to invent a whole new system, why not ensure that reasonable routes are permitted routes in the current system? That would be far simpler!​

The problem with that is that through years of frontline experience people just want the shortest or quickest route to get where they are going - not say for example a multitude of various London terminals they can go to on their ticket.

If this is too much of an effort for people to understand even though ive repeated the above often now then ill bow out because its boring writing the same thing over and over and over to people who then try to create problems which were not there in the first place.

​

 

[Clip]

Also - before I go - can anyone tell me how having 4 or 5 routes available on a ticket is anymore simpler than just having one route per ticket/journey?

 

[yorkie]

The problem with that is that through years of frontline experience people just want the shortest or quickest route to get where they are going - not say for example a multitude of various London terminals they can go to on their ticket.

The problem is that with years of experience I know that the quickest route at the time the customer arrives at the station is not necessarily going to be the route that you propose being the only permitted route. I also know that not all websites offer combinations of tickets, so your proposals require all train companies to be required to use one of the accredited split ticket engines, which isn't realistically going to happen.

I also know that most people do not leave their house and then do just ONE outward journey and ONE return journey; people often want to stop off at places along the way.

It would be ludicrous to try to restrict car owners to only taking one particular route. Why should rail users have rights taken from them and/or be forced to pay more than the already extortionate high prices?

I also know that during relatively minor disruption customers want to be able to take any alternative route that will get them to their destination without worrying if "acceptance" is in place.

If this is too much of an effort for people to understand even though ive repeated the above often now then ill bow out because its boring writing the same thing over and over and over to people who then try to create problems which were not there in the first place.

​

Exactly; people who make proposals that you are doing are creating problems which were not there. However there is no chance of such proposals actually happening in practice as it would be politically unacceptable.

Instead of ripping up the current system, we just need to ensure all flows have "Any Permitted" routeings, ensure that the quickest routes at any time of day are permitted routes (or at least that there is a fare for them) and other tweaks to the current system to protect customers interests.

Introducing a new, anti-customer system and/or a more expensive system is NOT an acceptable solution.

Also - before I go - can anyone tell me how having 4 or 5 routes available on a ticket is anymore simpler than just having one route per ticket/journey?

Passengers find the idea that you can use any sensible route to be a simple concept.

It is not a simple concept to be told that you are restricted to only some of the routes that journey planners come up with otherwise your tickets are invalid. It's also quite stressful for some people.

 

[alistairlees]

Also - before I go - can anyone tell me how having 4 or 5 routes available on a ticket is anymore simpler than just having one route per ticket/journey?

There are direct trains from York to Sheffield at 10.35 (via Doncaster) and 10.45 (via Leeds), with the pattern repeated for most subsequent hours of the day. The journey via Doncaster is shorter (51 miles, rather than 64) and quicker (~50 minutes rather than ~70 minutes).

Currently the £18.40 CDR (Off-Peak Return) is valid on either. It's also valid on some other routes, but let's ignore those for the moment.

Imagine someone turning up at York booking office or TVM at 10.25. Today they would just be sold that return ticket.

In future they are going to have to decide ("if you rush, sir / madam, you can get the via Doncaster train for £xx; if you miss it come back here to get your ticket excessed") which ticket they want. And, from personal experience at York, the two XC services often arrive closer together, and passengers get confused.

When you're in Sheffield, wanting to come back, it's worse. The two trains are spaced evenly (30 minutes) apart but I doubt most customers would be able to work out that some trains are "good" and others less so. So many would end up on the slower via Leeds train (it's better than waiting on the station) and being charged more.

Alternatively, just imagine that everyone does understand this is only valid via Doncaster; they now have trains only every 60 minutes to come back on, rather than every 30 minutes (unless they pay extra).

I think this would just cause terrible PR and customer confusion. As well as being perceived as lessening flexibility and increasing complexity.

 

[najaB]

Also - before I go - can anyone tell me how having 4 or 5 routes available on a ticket is anymore simpler than just having one route per ticket/journey?

It may or may not be simpler, but if there's one option that gives customers choice and another which restricts their choice then the former should be preferred over the latter (as a matter of principle).

 

[Clip]

The problem is that with years of experience I know that the quickest route at the time the customer arrives at the station is not necessarily going to be the route that you propose being the only permitted route. I also know that not all websites offer combinations of tickets, so your proposals require all train companies to be required to use one of the accredited split ticket engines, which isn't realistically going to happen.

I also know that most people do not leave their house and then do just ONE outward journey and ONE return journey; people often want to stop off at places along the way.

It would be ludicrous to try to restrict car owners to only taking one particular route. Why should rail users have rights taken from them and/or be forced to pay more than the already extortionate high prices?

I also know that during relatively minor disruption customers want to be able to take any alternative route that will get them to their destination without worrying if "acceptance" is in place.
​

Exactly; people who make proposals that you are doing are creating problems which were not there. However there is no chance of such proposals actually happening in practice as it would be politically unacceptable.

Instead of ripping up the current system, we just need to ensure all flows have "Any Permitted" routeings, ensure that the quickest routes at any time of day are permitted routes (or at least that there is a fare for them) and other tweaks to the current system to protect customers interests.

Introducing a new, anti-customer system and/or a more expensive system is NOT an acceptable solution.


Passengers find the idea that you can use any sensible route to be a simple concept.

It is not a simple concept to be told that you are restricted to only some of the routes that journey planners come up with otherwise your tickets are invalid. It's also quite stressful for some people.

Hmm you seem to be under the misapprehension that I support what I proposed when you actually asked 'how it would work between York and Sheffield?' and have now gone off half cocked that anyone who should actually come up with an idea of how it could work would dare to have the temerity to actually write it on here.

And now you are going off about split ticketing and journey planners to find a route when the most simplest part of the suggestion is that there is one route for one through ticket(I think I may have already mentioned this) so it would do away with the need for the routing guide and any complex journey planner algorithms that you claim there would have to be.

It may or may not be simpler, but if there's one option that gives customers choice and another which restricts their choice then the former should be preferred over the latter (as a matter of principle).

See ^^^ that's the only reply that should've been posted and my answer to that would've been yes - we should give the customer choice and this is why my suggestion would not work in the real world in my view. Simple

 

[yorkie]

I agree your suggestion would not work... So why suggest it?

It really isn't clear what point you are making.

 

[najaB]

I agree your suggestion would not work... So why suggest it?

As per an earlier post - @Clip was answering a question of *how* a system could work, he wasn't suggesting it was a good idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thinking about this a bit more, the main problem I see with some tickets limiting your route somewhat in the present system is that if you wish to purchase a return via a route that cannot be ticketed as one ticket, you have to either pay well over the odds or come back that way as well. Or if you want to break your journey where it is not allowed the same issue applies - upping to the Anytime Return or having to buy three or four overpriced singles is really excessive when all you want to do is pop out to the shops for an hour[1] like you could do if you were in your car.

That being the case, most of the issues would seem to be solved by single-leg pricing, i.e. making returns twice the price of singles[2]. Then you just stack up what you need using singles, just as you can at the moment if there are Advances available for your chosen legs, or if all legs are Anytimes where the singles tend to be roughly half the return/returns roughly twice the single.

If you don't want to construct the set of singles yourself, just use Trainsplit or similar to buy them.

[1] De-facto nobody really stops you doing this, but as the railway is ever moving towards stricter enforcement of such things (in BR days "no BoJ" just meant your ticket would be collected on the way out and so could not be used to restart, not that you'd be charged more for making a shorter journey) the ticketing system needs to work in a way feasible for everyone's needs.

[2] If done on a revenue neutral basis it would result in a small increase to return fares, but I suspect this would indeed be small because most people aren't making single journeys nor complicated ones in a routeing sense.