Fare simplification - should splitting be the norm?

[Bletchleyite]

Automated split ticketing allows radical fare simplification as we no longer have to provide separate fares for all possible journeys via all independently priced routes.

It slashes the number of different fares that must be maintained.

And we can do it without that much lost revenue because people are increasingly already splitting.

I am inclined to completely agree here, at least with regard to Advance fares, but also with regard to many others. Not to say that there shouldn't be "full price" through Anytime and Off Peak fares, ideally single fare priced (with corresponding returns at twice the single fare as per Oval).

With regard to Advance it would be so much simpler if these were sold on a "per vehicle journey" split basis - they are so commonly cheaper in this way anyway. This would also remove nonsense over break of journey as you would have a separate barcoded "boarding pass" per train so would be easily able to leave and re-enter the gateline at the change point wihout requesting permission should you wish, and would easily be able to purchase a through itinerary by any route you wish regardless of the Routeing Guide etc simply by it being ticketed on that split basis even if a through ticket does not exist. Within vehicle journeys I would suggest, however, rather than using splitting, that the quota issues that result in Advances being cheaper split within a vehicle journey are addressed so that splits within a vehicle journey cease to be cheaper - this was going to be done at one point but has been forgotten.

Thus I would say that GBR's sales site and all accredited sites should by default check and offer splits at change points. Obviously more complex sites can continue to offer other splits (e.g. strings of off peak day returns) if they feel it commercially expedient to do so, though really single fare pricing should remove the situation that these are cheaper anyway as it largely does in the Oval area (with the exception of the restrictions issue caused by limitations on what planners can do* which really needs fixing).

There should also be a rule that one admin fee is chargeable to change such a combination, not one per ticket, and that an Advance can still be issued at a walk up fare as part of such an itinerary if there isn't one available specifically in order to prevent people ending up with itineraries that are partially changeable on the day of travel and partially not due to the new refund rules with which we are likely stuck.

* That is that planners can't implement "a connecting service can be used to continue a journey begun at a valid time" which is required to properly align restrictions between contactless payment and traditional tickets as close as possible given the context.

 

[Gaelan]

The downside here is it forces you to price less direct routes higher, when ideally if anything they'd be a bit cheaper (though no cheaper than any individual leg, to avoid anomalies) to compensate for the slower journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The downside here is it forces you to price less direct routes higher, when ideally if anything they'd be a bit cheaper (though no cheaper than any individual leg, to avoid anomalies) to compensate for the slower journey.

Are there many such cases that don't involve a through train or something close to one e.g. local leg, long distance leg, local leg?

Simplifying the fares system will necessarily have downsides for niche cases, but is there a sensible mainstream one?

 

[35B]

I think it's a reasonable answer, but presumes that a model that enshrines splitting is necessary or desirable. It is noticeable that the systems that are widely admired for ease of use don't have a concept of splitting.

Splitting as a general phenomenon exists because there are significant fare and quota differentials that make it worth shopping around. That is fundamentally a sign of an inefficient market, where the price setters are undermining their own objectives by being misaligned. As a consumer, it also creates very variable results, hugely beneficial for some where splits work, but of no use to others who either aren't aware of the option, or for whom there isn't an opportunity for that arbitrage.

As such, the proposed change is tinkering to make a broken system slightly more bearable, but building in yet further distortions in the process.

If I wanted to deal with the problem (and, let's be frank, GBR won't and the public won't accept the loss of the headline low fares), I'd focus on removing the incentive to split in the first place, both in terms of how fares are set and in terms of how capacity is allocated. Having done that, if there were still places where short distance (<20 miles) reservations/fares were limiting access to value for money through fares, I'd then also look at restricting the availability of reservations on such legs to make capacity available on those longer distance trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's a reasonable answer, but presumes that a model that enshrines splitting is necessary or desirable. It is noticeable that the systems that are widely admired for ease of use don't have a concept of splitting.

Which systems on a comparable railway would these be? Noting that SBB, NS, SNCB and the likes aren't comparable because the countries are vastly smaller than the UK and those railways are in effect just big metro systems which operate exclusively or close to exclusively on walk up fares?

In Italy for example, or in France, tickets (well, Advance type ones) are mostly sold on a per-vehicle-journey basis. In Germany it's a bit of both.

 

[blimmo]

I recently learned that Japan has splits despite being a mostly distance based fares system.

The following website claims to find them:
https://bunkatsu.info/outline.html#a01

On JR routes, there are many sections where the total fare is reduced by dividing the ticket

 

[35B]

Which systems on a comparable railway would these be? Noting that SBB, NS, SNCB and the likes aren't comparable because the countries are vastly smaller than the UK and those railways are in effect just big metro systems which operate exclusively or close to exclusively on walk up fares?

In Italy for example, or in France, tickets (well, Advance type ones) are mostly sold on a per-vehicle-journey basis. In Germany it's a bit of both.

I don't see why the journey distances make them beyond comparison. And what you don't mention is that a per-vehicle-journey ticketing model has a tendency to limit the accessibility of, and rights associated with, through tickets - hence various discussions over CIV.

Ultimately, the question is about the average fare paid - and how far the actual fares paid deviate from that average. British fares have a tendency towards extremes, which is corrosive of trust. The rules around splitting do nothing to enhance that trust, and make them prime candidates for disputes. Building in an expectation of splitting is therefore IMHO the wrong way to go, with disproportionate weight being put on a mechanism that can never adequately bear the burden being put on it.

For physicists and mathematicians, beauty is found in simplicity. These solutions, by that definition, are plug ugly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why the journey distances make them beyond comparison. And what you don't mention is that a per-vehicle-journey ticketing model has a tendency to limit the accessibility of, and rights associated with, through tickets - hence various discussions over CIV.

It does not do so in the UK however. And we are talking about the UK.

 

[blimmo]

For physicists and mathematicians, beauty is found in simplicity. These solutions, by that definition, are plug ugly.

As a mathematician I have to disagree. The thing that needs to be simple is the system, not the eventual output of that system. For example the Mandelbrot set is generated by a simple set of rules but is inarguably complex. A mandatory splits system is simple in my opinion, it is the insistence on through fares for every journey that makes the system complicated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2026 ==

It does not do so in the UK however. And we are talking about the UK.

I think the point is that the systems in those countries may be like that in order to limit the operators' CIV liability rather than for any passenger focused reason.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless we wish to move to pure distance fares with no advances, no railcards (at least without universal applicability), no peak/off-peak split nor any other similar mechanisms, I can't see a way to avoid oddities and counter-intuitive results.
The rail system is simply too sprawling and too complex.

Splitting up front in the ticketing engine at least makes those counter-intuitive results available to everyone, rather than a subset of people "in the know".

EDIT:
And once we accept split ticketing as the norm, then we can do without tens of millions of separately set fares, many of which are never used by anyone, or are only used for want of the knowledge to split.

 

[35B]

It does not do so in the UK however. And we are talking about the UK.

Allow me to introduce the law of unintended consequences to the conversation

 

[NCT]

Surely this is more about the back-office logic? A ticket could be made up of multiple building blocks. For example Crystal Palace to Four Oaks could be a London Zonal single + London Terminals - Birmingham BR + a WM zonal single. I'm sure you can build into the logic that when a local zonal single is a building block of a longer-distance journey you automatically apply a % discount.

The passenger still perceives one Crystal Palace - Four Oaks ticket (or London Zone 3 - WM Zone X ticket).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely this is more about the back-office logic? A ticket could be made up of multiple building blocks. For example Crystal Palace to Four Oaks could be a London Zonal single + London Terminals - Birmingham BR + a WM zonal single. I'm sure you can build into the logic that when a local zonal single is a building block of a longer-distance journey you automatically apply a % discount.

The passenger still perceives one Crystal Palace - Four Oaks ticket (or London Zone 3 - WM Zone X ticket).

You could do this, but personally, with the way gatelines are now, I prefer (in the context of an Advance journey) having a "boarding pass" for each train which would open the gates at each booked change station, avoiding any confrontations with staff about whether you can go out or not.

This can also show things like reservations more clearly.

 

[NCT]

You could do this, but personally, with the way gatelines are now, I prefer (in the context of an Advance journey) having a "boarding pass" for each train which would open the gates at each booked change station, avoiding any confrontations with staff about whether you can go out or not.

This can also show things like reservations more clearly.

Again, surely this is just a matter of back-office logic and competence? It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the industry to make in-journey barrier crossings or break-of-journeys less buggy.

 

[HSTEd]

With a large enough QR code, a single code should be able to contain the entire itinerary, but how practical that is would depend on the resolution capability of all the installed ticket scanners.

But I agree back office logic is the real question here.

The enormous multi-dimensional lookup table we have effectively created now is a very unwieldy way of generating train fares. We can potentially cut it down by orders of magnitude if we build all tickets out of split building blocks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a large enough QR code, a single code should be able to contain the entire itinerary, but how practical that is would depend on the resolution capability of all the installed ticket scanners.

But I agree back office logic is the real question here.

Well, sort of. I genuinely think with e-tickets at least having a run of "boarding cards" each clearly showing departure time, arrival time, coach, seat and a barcode that will open the gates at the origin and destination of that boarding card is genuinely simpler in every way. Yes, you get a "pile of tickets" but that doesn't matter when they're nicely grouped together in an Apple or Google Wallet, it's not like a pile of orange card. Yes, this might be a mild pain for those preferring paper tickets who would get a pile of them, but they are an increasingly diminishing minority, so the system should be designed for e-tickets with paper tickets a bolt-on for those who really don't want to or can't do e-tickets.

The enormous multi-dimensional lookup table we have effectively created now is a very unwieldy way of generating train fares. We can potentially cut it down by orders of magnitude if we build all tickets out of split building blocks.

Agreed. The Routeing Guide is another example of this (obviously only relevant to walk-up type tickets, not Advances which are simply in this concept valid for a vehicle journey on a specific train regardless of which way it goes) - it would be a lot simpler if it was recursive, i.e. if you can go from London to Glasgow via Manchester, say, you'd be able to go via all valid routes from London to Manchester and so on.

 

[Topological]

I have long advocated that split tickets should be the default.

At the moment you have to get one database query to tell you the optimal split and then get another site to book those tickets. Otherwise, you end up paying for the split ticket information. There are few other commercial instances where you go into the shop, check prices, and are then thought badly of for buying cheaper elsewhere. It is only the railway that can create this situation.

Be careful though. I have seen times where the split site finds an advance that is not available on the free sites. Then it is necessary to compare the price of the ticket plus the "share of the saving" with the cheapest ticket that a no fee site will retail at.

Of course, if you want to support the forum then that is different. I doubt that applies to the general public targetted by this thread though.

 

[35B]

I have long advocated that split tickets should be the default.

At the moment you have to get one database query to tell you the optimal split and then get another site to book those tickets. Otherwise, you end up paying for the split ticket information. There are few other commercial instances where you go into the shop, check prices, and are then thought badly of for buying cheaper elsewhere. It is only the railway that can create this situation.

Be careful though. I have seen times where the split site finds an advance that is not available on the free sites. Then it is necessary to compare the price of the ticket plus the "share of the saving" with the cheapest ticket that a no fee site will retail at.

Of course, if you want to support the forum then that is different. I doubt that applies to the general public targetted by this thread though.

Erm, isn't checking things in the shop and buying online precisely what retailers hold against the likes of Amazon?

Split tickets are the result of a fundamental failure of pricing over many years. They come with significant additional complexity, to research and to use, and are a response to excessive baseline pricing.

The market for splitting would disappear if the pricing and availability anomalies were even partially resolved.

 

[Topological]

Erm, isn't checking things in the shop and buying online precisely what retailers hold against the likes of Amazon?

Split tickets are the result of a fundamental failure of pricing over many years. They come with significant additional complexity, to research and to use, and are a response to excessive baseline pricing.

The market for splitting would disappear if the pricing and availability anomalies were even partially resolved.

I am sure the retailers do not like it that people check things and then buy online. However, I do not believe it has become socially unacceptable to check physical stores and then buy online.

Classic public good provision question, though. If no one buys from physical stores then they all close and there is nowhere to check before going to Amazon. If there are no split ticket sites then there is no tool to check before going to the main retailers.

So I think in this case the main retailers should just offer the split options as a default (or at least as an option).

 

[yorkie]

I am inclined to completely agree here, at least with regard to Advance fares, but also with regard to many others. Not to say that there shouldn't be "full price" through Anytime and Off Peak fares, ideally single fare priced (with corresponding returns at twice the single fare as per Oval).

I wouldn't disagree with this outcome, but how would you fund it?

With regard to Advance it would be so much simpler if these were sold on a "per vehicle journey" split basis - they are so commonly cheaper in this way anyway.

But many aren't. Those that aren't can be priced more fairly than those which require a separate ticket. You'd also be introducing a further restriction in the case of "& Connections" tickets; it sounds like you want to abolish flexibility on the connection leg (or force the walk-up rate to be paid)?

This would also remove nonsense over break of journey as you would have a separate barcoded "boarding pass" per train so would be easily able to leave and re-enter the gateline at the change point wihout requesting permission should you wish,

Leaving and re-entering gatelines isn't actually a break of journey as such.

and would easily be able to purchase a through itinerary by any route you wish regardless of the Routeing Guide etc simply by it being ticketed on that split basis even if a through ticket does not exist.

People can already do this, e.g. by using the forum's ticketing site.

Within vehicle journeys I would suggest, however, rather than using splitting, that the quota issues that result in Advances being cheaper split within a vehicle journey are addressed so that splits within a vehicle journey cease to be cheaper - this was going to be done at one point but has been forgotten.

LNER did it - to some extent, it wasn't as good as the forum's site - however they soon abolished it when they realised it was allowing people to pay less than LNER wanted them to pay for premium journeys, especially those journeys that are part of the increased fare trial e.g. Edinburgh to London, and completely undermined the trial.

Of course, the forum's ticketing site undermines LNER's high fares, however LNER have a huge marketing campaign desperately trying to get as many people as possible to "book direct" to pay the higher fares, and they aren't going to want to lower the prices to match the fares the forum site finds, given some people are prepared to pay those higher fares (and yes, some people are deterred from travelling, but that's also seen as a win, as it avoids further additional rolling stock to be purchased)

Thus I would say that GBR's sales site and all accredited sites should by default check and offer splits at change points. Obviously more complex sites can continue to offer other splits (e.g. strings of off peak day returns) if they feel it commercially expedient to do so, though really single fare pricing should remove the situation that these are cheaper anyway as it largely does in the Oval area (with the exception of the restrictions issue caused by limitations on what planners can do* which really needs fixing).

This is putting the cart before the horse. You'd need to provide funding before you can reduce the amount people pay.

Given you've not posted a plan to do this, I assume you intend for general taxation to increase to allow rail fares to be reduced. No objections from me personally, but I am not sure if this would be a popular policy.

There should also be a rule that one admin fee is chargeable to change such a combination, not one per ticket, and that an Advance can still be issued at a walk up fare as part of such an itinerary if there isn't one available specifically in order to prevent people ending up with itineraries that are partially changeable on the day of travel and partially not due to the new refund rules with which we are likely stuck.

Savvy passengers already get this, by using our website.

I agree that TOC sites (and ultimately GBR) should adopt this policy, but again you can't just demand that TOCs/GBR charge less without funding.

I think it's a reasonable answer, but presumes that a model that enshrines splitting is necessary or desirable. It is noticeable that the systems that are widely admired for ease of use don't have a concept of splitting.

Which such systems do you think don't have a concept of splitting?

If you are going to say Switzerland, I will absolutely be able to disprove this (and I will invite @Oscar to the discussion!)

Splitting as a general phenomenon exists because there are significant fare and quota differentials that make it worth shopping around. That is fundamentally a sign of an inefficient market, where the price setters are undermining their own objectives by being misaligned. As a consumer, it also creates very variable results, hugely beneficial for some where splits work, but of no use to others who either aren't aware of the option, or for whom there isn't an opportunity for that arbitrage.

As such, the proposed change is tinkering to make a broken system slightly more bearable, but building in yet further distortions in the process.

If I wanted to deal with the problem (and, let's be frank, GBR won't and the public won't accept the loss of the headline low fares), I'd focus on removing the incentive to split in the first place, both in terms of how fares are set and in terms of how capacity is allocated. Having done that, if there were still places where short distance (<20 miles) reservations/fares were limiting access to value for money through fares, I'd then also look at restricting the availability of reservations on such legs to make capacity available on those longer distance trains.

Are you endorsing a general lowering of fares, as proposed by @Bletchleyite ? If so, again the question is where is the funding going to come from; you need to address the funding issue before you can achieve this. Or are you so keen to abolish splits that you would accept the dreaded "revenue neutral" policy as favoured by RDG and its well-paid consultants?

Also, if you are planning to reduce fares differentials, are you saying that you are not wanting to segment the market in any way and that you are not wanting to use yield management techniques to affect demand in any way? It really isn't clear what it is that you are proposing, but I am yet to see a fully workable proposal that achieves these things.

 

[35B]

I am sure the retailers do not like it that people check things and then buy online. However, I do not believe it has become socially unacceptable to check physical stores and then buy online.

Classic public good provision question, though. If no one buys from physical stores then they all close and there is nowhere to check before going to Amazon. If there are no split ticket sites then there is no tool to check before going to the main retailers.

So I think in this case the main retailers should just offer the split options as a default (or at least as an option).

I think the bricks and mortar retailer and split ticket seller positions are identical - they quite reasonably object to bearing the costs of providing the comparison, and the customer then going elsewhere to purchase having used their knowledge for free. How socially acceptable that is varies - and does then become a public good provision question. For myself, I regard the extra cost of buying in person against online as reasonable where I need to have greater confidence in what I'm buying - and I apply the same logic to online ticket sales.

And that's where I think the OP's suggestion and your view break down. Split fares rely on a great many different factors to operate, meaning that the algorithms that surface them require proprietary knowledge to develop and then the processing facilities to deliver. The complaints about how some retailers, notably Trainline, deliver split fares by default without adequately communicating the implications, demonstrate how important it is to do it right.

I'd welcome some administrative changes, for example allowing more thorough searching of fares against the database, that would improve the quality of splits when they're searched for. But the wholesale change would I think be a step backwards.

 

[crablab]

The downside here is it forces you to price less direct routes higher, when ideally if anything they'd be a bit cheaper (though no cheaper than any individual leg, to avoid anomalies) to compensate for the slower journey.

For the hard of thinking - why is this a certainty?

 

[Topological]

I think the bricks and mortar retailer and split ticket seller positions are identical - they quite reasonably object to bearing the costs of providing the comparison, and the customer then going elsewhere to purchase having used their knowledge for free. How socially acceptable that is varies - and does then become a public good provision question. For myself, I regard the extra cost of buying in person against online as reasonable where I need to have greater confidence in what I'm buying - and I apply the same logic to online ticket sales.

And that's where I think the OP's suggestion and your view break down. Split fares rely on a great many different factors to operate, meaning that the algorithms that surface them require proprietary knowledge to develop and then the processing facilities to deliver. The complaints about how some retailers, notably Trainline, deliver split fares by default without adequately communicating the implications, demonstrate how important it is to do it right.

I'd welcome some administrative changes, for example allowing more thorough searching of fares against the database, that would improve the quality of splits when they're searched for. But the wholesale change would I think be a step backwards.

I think doing it right is essential. Like anything with retailing you need to be transparent.

However, split ticketing is like "sold as seen" in a shop. You expressly tell the customer of the reduced refund/exchange rights prior to sale and that is the responsibility of the retailer complete. If The Trainline are not doing things properly then that should be for them to be punished accordingly. I do not use The Trainline because there is a booking fee. However, the travel agent that books my work tickets does. 99% of my tickets are bought from TOCs own websites.

Train tickets are not like physical goods. You do not need to inspect a train ticket for scratches, or see if all the parts are there. You do not take a train ticket on a test drive. You simply pay your money and get an identical product from all retailers. The only difference is whether you get information about whether you are getting the best product (e.g. splitting to save money), or not.

 

[HSTEd]

But many aren't. Those that aren't can be priced more fairly than those which require a separate ticket. You'd also be introducing a further restriction in the case of "& Connections" tickets; it sounds like you want to abolish flexibility on the connection leg (or force the walk-up rate to be paid)?

I propose that "And connections" tickets would simply cease to exist as a special category of product.

The booking engine would give you an itinerary that combined the optimum pricing for any given journey - this might be all walk-up, all advance or a combination of the two.
If passengers require flexibility on a given leg they can tick a box that gives them that flexibility, there would often be some financial consequence to doing so however.

The spread of split ticketing sites means the revenue loss from embracing splitting officially is increasingly lost regardless, and this mess is hardly an advert for the railway. We've created a system designed to punish the trusting and unwary and the only way I can see for this to meaningfully be addressed is to utilise splitting.

I can't see it being feasible to rationalising ticketing without it, especially given the resistance to a simple distance model (because stakeholders want advances, off peak and such).

 

[yorkie]

I propose that "And connections" tickets would simply cease to exist as a special category of product.

In other words, increasing the cost of many longer distance journeys paid by the most price-sensitive of passengers. Great (!)

I recently learned that Japan has splits despite being a mostly distance based fares system.

Agreed. Although you are often forced to split in Japan, due to changing company, I guess you mean within the same company, to which I would say almost all (if not all) complex railway systems have splitting opportunities (or other anomalies), even Switzerland. The people who claim that it's possible to eliminate splits generally don't have quite as much knowledge of other ticketing systems as they think they do

I certainly wouldn't say I am expert in Swiss ticketing, but I probably know a lot more than the average person and - crucially - I do have access to genuine experts who have not only assured me splitting exists, but have actively suggested splits for journeys I have done in Switzerland and explained why those split opportunities exist.

 

[HSTEd]

In other words, increasing the cost of many longer distance journeys paid by the most price-sensitive of passengers. Great (!)

If it is in the railway's interest to provide suitable advances for the connecting legs, they can be provided.

But I can't see flexibility being necessary for the bulk of long distance passengers - my anecdotal experience is most want to proceed directly to their destination as fast as possible? If they miss their connection then they are into the delay procedure regardless.

 

[renegademaster]

You could do this, but personally, with the way gatelines are now, I prefer (in the context of an Advance journey) having a "boarding pass" for each train which would open the gates at each booked change station, avoiding any confrontations with staff about whether you can go out or not.

This can also show things like reservations more clearly.

If you are drastically changing the ticketing system I'm sure they can write some better software for the gates, they will have to anyway.

Split tickets as the base makes sense but the detail should be hidden away from the customers to avoid unnecessary complexity. The Aztec code will have basically 3 tickets encoded inside them, but the customer doesn't need to know

 

[35B]

Are you endorsing a general lowering of fares, as proposed by @Bletchleyite ? If so, again the question is where is the funding going to come from; you need to address the funding issue before you can achieve this. Or are you so keen to abolish splits that you would accept the dreaded "revenue neutral" policy as favoured by RDG and its well-paid consultants?

Also, if you are planning to reduce fares differentials, are you saying that you are not wanting to segment the market in any way and that you are not wanting to use yield management techniques to affect demand in any way? It really isn't clear what it is that you are proposing, but I am yet to see a fully workable proposal that achieves these things.

I'm suggesting that @Bletchleyite has the wrong answer to a reasonable question - which is how customers obtain the most economical tickets.

Splits undermine the power of TOC pricing managers, by allowing customers to find ways to mitigate the costs of journeys in return for accepting additional constraints on their journeys. In a rational world, they would not exist as a routine option for ticket buying because the operators would not routinely set their fares in a way that encouraged their use. The pursuit of ever more pricing strategies by individual operators, in what remains an integrated network, creates more and more opportunities for customers to exploit differences.

At the moment, the effect is a network that offers extraordinarily expensive headline fares, but very rarely charges those full values. Knowledgeable customers exploit the options, getting the benefit of some very low fares, but the average fare per mile remains high.

That means that, in a rational world, there would be scope to both lower the headline fares and reduce the degree to which expectations are set by what are in reality discounted fares, complete with the whole panoply of time restrictions. That's not RDG style "revenue neutral" pricing (which, I agree, is in reality a spreadsheet construct designed to increase income), but a genuine net lowering of fares that achieves revenue neutrality by eliminating the grossest exceptions. I wouldn't abolish splits (I also use them), but I would see them diminish in importance to where they used to be. I'm sure that they do exist in most networks - fares arbitrage is always going to be a factor - but not as a dominant feature.

Yield management remains a valuable tool, but falls back promoting marginal demand rather than, as presently, being a blanket approach.

The thread is speculative, and in reality I have no expectation of material change any time soon. But I just posit an alternative perspective about how we could get to a better fares environment.

 

[Topological]

Essentially, we have a system which rewards those who know it and penalises those who do not. I would suspect that is the opposite of what most governments wish to promote.

Some can query a split site and then pay on a no booking fee site. The rest are left with something sub-optimal.

IF we make splits the norm then prices rise, but it is only those of use who know about splits who suffer. The general public (who mostly do not buy splits) do not suffer.

IF the balance is that most people do buy splits, then the impact of the lower proportion of non-split buyers switching to buying splits will be smaller and the price increases that ensue will be lower.

 

[35B]

Essentially, we have a system which rewards those who know it and penalises those who do not. I would suspect that is the opposite of what most governments wish to promote.

Some can query a split site and then pay on a no booking fee site. The rest are left with something sub-optimal.

IF we make splits the norm then prices rise, but it is only those of use who know about splits who suffer. The general public (who mostly do not buy splits) do not suffer.

IF the balance is that most people do buy splits, then the impact of the lower proportion of non-split buyers switching to buying splits will be smaller and the price increases that ensue will be lower.

I suggest that DfT and HM Treasury wish to remove the rewards for those who know, while leaving the penalties in place for the rest. It is ultimately a moral question, but free riding on others' work to get benefits is not a case of "those who don't know being penalised", but the exploitation of loopholes.

Ultimately, embedding their use is not fundamentally about price, as an equilibrium will establish within the overall economy of the railway. It is about the ease (or difficulty) of use of the railway, where those of us who are familiar with ways to optimise the system do not realise what a barrier the perceived need for that knowledge is to others who don't understand it, or how to take advantage of it. Some learn and adapt, others just back right away.

I wish to see a move away from splits, because I think their increasing importance is a sign of a system that has gone wrong.

@blimmo notes that the beauty of simplicity is in the system, rather than the outputs. I agree. But I disagree that this means that a constrained system would be beautiful or simple - it would achieve a narrow definition of that, but at the cost of a system that is overall more complex, and requires more rules and more intervention points, each one of which generates conflict.