Fares reform idea (from Twitter)

[Haywain]

I saw the following posted on Twitter (by @sc_wadsy) and felt the forum may find it interesting as a matter for discussion. I've condensed it down from a series of tweets (originally posted nearly 4 weeks ago) for ease of reading.

"My plan for fares reform (with inspiration from others):

A. Have only one railcard that anyone can buy, and treat it as a loyalty card - the more you travel the more discount you get. You get 30% off on your first fare (as now).

B. Scrap peak and advance fares.

C. The fare for X to Z via Y is set to be the same as X to Y + Y to Z, so split ticketing gains no advantage. Train companies can then determine which stations passengers actually want to go from and to.

D. Single leg pricing, but you get 30% more discount on the return ticket if you buy one at the same time

E. You can travel via London at no additional cost. [P.S. If that does not fill the trains then nothing will]

F. Look at season ticket and carnet type pricing. If the cost of travel with changes A to E above is lower than season/carnet tickets are now, scrap both of them. You will get a better discount via the railcard.

P.S. Should have said for A. price the discount, so that at season ticket level of usage the discount is matched or bettered. This cuts up-front revenue, but removes all need to refund season ticket holders when trains don't run. This also removes the need for employers to offer loans to employees to cover season tickets. The Treasury may hypothecate interest for the loss of upfront revenue, but the idea is to increase revenue over time as season ticket revenue has fallen through the floor.

 

[Gaelan]

Sounds like the Dutch system. A lovely idea I’d support wholeheartedly (short of abolishing fares entirely), but I can’t see the current government/industry endorsing a fare “simplification” that didn’t result in fare increases for many customers.

 

[yorkie]

Very briefly...

I saw the following posted on Twitter (by @sc_wadsy) and felt the forum may find it interesting as a matter for discussion. I've condensed it down from a series of tweets (originally posted nearly 4 weeks ago) for ease of reading.

"My plan for fares reform (with inspiration from others):

A. Have only one railcard that anyone can buy, and treat it as a loyalty card - the more you travel the more discount you get. You get 30% off on your first fare (as now).

Good idea if they said that disabled people could get it for free (or nominal cost) and increase the rate accordingly for different groups; you'd also have to harmonise T&Cs though which means winners & losers.

B. Scrap peak and advance fares.

combined with single leg pricing would mean that you can do e.g. Sheffield to Derby at any time for under £7 each way; that sounds great to me, but could the peak trains become overcrowded and would additional capacity be needed?

C. The fare for X to Z via Y is set to be the same as X to Y + Y to Z, so split ticketing gains no advantage. Train companies can then determine which stations passengers actually want to go from and to.

I wonder how they calculate fares such as York to Sheffield? Do they add up the sum of fares via Pontefract, Leeds or Doncaster? Could it end up being cheaper to go further, or would routes become more prescriptive?

D. Single leg pricing, but you get 30% more discount on the return ticket if you buy one at the same time

That isn't really single leg pricing and I am not sure what they actually mean by this.

E. You can travel via London at no additional cost. [P.S. If that does not fill the trains then nothing will]

Would there be no extra cost to travel via London for a journey such as Tamworth to Reading? What about Manchester to Taunton? How far do you take it? And again would this mean it becomes cheaper in some cases to start/finish short? I think it would!

F. Look at season ticket and carnet type pricing. If the cost of travel with changes A to E above is lower than season/carnet tickets are now, scrap both of them. You will get a better discount via the railcard.

Would all railcards be valid at any time then? I could see that becoming problematic and goes against one of the purposes of some railcards, which is to fill empty seats at off peak times.

P.S. Should have said for A. price the discount, so that at season ticket level of usage the discount is matched or bettered. This cuts up-front revenue, but removes all need to refund season ticket holders when trains don't run. This also removes the need for employers to offer loans to employees to cover season tickets. The Treasury may hypothecate interest for the loss of upfront revenue, but the idea is to increase revenue over time as season ticket revenue has fallen through the floor.

I don't think they have thought their ideas through; someone who knows a lot about fares wouldn't think it's as easy as they seem to think it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

Sounds like the Dutch system. A lovely idea I’d support wholeheartedly (short of abolishing fares entirely), but I can’t see the current government/industry endorsing a fare “simplification” that didn’t result in fare increases for many customers.

Totally this!

 

[Gaelan]

The fundamental problem with any fare reform is that you either remove discounts and anomalies with no replacement (increasing fares for many customers, either making people angry at you, reducing revenue through reduced usage, or both), or you reduce the fares for everyone to the former discounted/anomalous price (which makes your manager angry at you). The only way I see it happening is if it happens at the same time as a significant increase in railway subsidy.

 

[Haywain]

That isn't really single leg pricing and I am not sure what they actually mean by this.

I think the suggestion is that for a £10 single fare, you would be able to buy the return leg at the same time for £7. If you had the theoretical railcard both of those fares would get the 30% discount.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

I don't think they have thought their ideas through; someone who knows a lot about fares wouldn't think it's as easy as they seem to think it is.

I absolutely agree. Sadly they don't seem to have been questioned too much on Twitter.

 

[2192]

combined with single leg pricing would mean that you can do e.g. Sheffield to Derby at any time for under £7 each way; that sounds great to me, but could the peak trains become overcrowded and would additional capacity be needed?

Derby to Sheffield is already £7 RETURN if you are an OAP and buy a Derbyshire Wayfarer, (and start after 0900 M-F). It even allows Burton on Trent to Sheffield and back! Don't take that from us.

I like the whole idea from Twitter, but it would cause problems in the morning rush hour.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It would seem there's nothing new under the sun and I think all these possibilities have been discussed here at some point. The inevitable conclusion that there will be both winners and losers whatever change is made makes it politically very difficult to push any meaningful change through. One point that perhaps could be expanded on is whether an apparent overall reduction in fares leading to a capacity crunch is necessarily a bad idea in the longer term.

Assuming the government actually intends to meet its carbon reduction targets then incentivising people to switch from road to rail through reduced rail fares would send a very clear signal of genuine intent. There would very likely be overcrowding to start with, and that would put some people off, but if a reasonable increase in total revenue can be generated then spending on additional capacity is easier to justify. It's the utopian virtuous circle often expressed by campaigners but in an age of ever increasing environmental awareness politicians and senior civil service officials may have to buy in to such ideas. Perhaps something to raise when campaigning for the next GE gets under way.

 

[Howardh]

One single Railcard for everything gets my vote. So many options on the drop-down menu!

But if all rail users could buy a railcard then it could be £30 for seniors, £50 40 - 59yrs, £100 25 - 39 and £30 under 24.

Or something, and maybe a bigger discount for r/c users on the more expensive tickets, eg a single over £40 gets a bigger reduction (50%?).

Complex, yes, but the rail company gets a lump sum up front and people like me with railcards are more likely to use rail than without

 

[Bartsimho]

With the concerns about capacity at peak times might it give a kick up the arse to some TOC's to actually run double sets during the peaks like they probably should and in a world where rail investment is scarce surely showing that lots of people are willing to travel on rail be good to drive investment (and get people moan to their MPs about the capacity so plans and investment are pushed for as more of the general public want it).

Also with the Split Ticket and London things I think it is meaning that the price of a direct is the same as the cheapest Split Ticket and removing the London premium should drive demand to the point that more capacity is considered on the lines in and out of London by whatever means possible (Use as clearer justification for upgrade work/HS2/whatever capacity project you like).

 

[Haywain]

But if all rail users could buy a railcard then it could be £30 for seniors, £50 40 - 59yrs, £100 25 - 39 and £30 under 24.

Or something, and maybe a bigger discount for r/c users on the more expensive tickets, eg a single over £40 gets a bigger reduction (50%?).

Whilst it's a bit of a side issue to fares reform, in terms of pricing railcards I think it's worth noting that in another thread someone is spending £200 on a Gold Card qualified annual season in order to discount their local journeys in London.

 

[Gaelan]

Is anyone aware of research into whether increased fares at peak times (directly via anytime tickets, or indirectly via more expensive advances) shifts demand into off-peak times, or simply reduces demand (ie people choosing not to travel by rail at all)? The former makes some amount of sense to me, but it’s a shame if we’re pricing people out of rail entirely.

 

[Bantamzen]

It would seem there's nothing new under the sun and I think all these possibilities have been discussed here at some point. The inevitable conclusion that there will be both winners and losers whatever change is made makes it politically very difficult to push any meaningful change through. One point that perhaps could be expanded on is whether an apparent overall reduction in fares leading to a capacity crunch is necessarily a bad idea in the longer term.

Assuming the government actually intends to meet its carbon reduction targets then incentivising people to switch from road to rail through reduced rail fares would send a very clear signal of genuine intent. There would very likely be overcrowding to start with, and that would put some people off, but if a reasonable increase in total revenue can be generated then spending on additional capacity is easier to justify. It's the utopian virtuous circle often expressed by campaigners but in an age of ever increasing environmental awareness politicians and senior civil service officials may have to buy in to such ideas. Perhaps something to raise when campaigning for the next GE gets under way.

I actually don't think such a scheme would suddenly see overcrowding, even with a 30% discount. More likely would be a slow uptake over time, but only if the rail network shakes of a lot of its issues and starts to run reliably. But as a long term strategy it will work, so long as ministers and bean counters accept that for a while some services will be lighter loaded than they would like & that higher subsidies will be needed for a good while.

 

[Haywain]

so long as ministers and bean counters accept that for a while some services will be lighter loaded than they would like & that higher subsidies will be needed for a good while.

And that's the downfall of such ideas.

 

[yorksrob]

Why not just do something really groundbreaking like the Austrians and Germans have.

That aside, things such as the single railcard available to all are a good idea.

Also, I think that peak pricing has probably had its day.

 

[Darandio]

One single Railcard for everything gets my vote. So many options on the drop-down menu!

But if all rail users could buy a railcard then it could be £30 for seniors, £50 40 - 59yrs, £100 25 - 39 and £30 under 24.

Or something, and maybe a bigger discount for r/c users on the more expensive tickets, eg a single over £40 gets a bigger reduction (50%?).

Complex, yes, but the rail company gets a lump sum up front and people like me with railcards are more likely to use rail than without

How do you justify someone aged 25-39 paying double of someone aged 40-59?

 

[Gaelan]

Why not just do something really groundbreaking like the Austrians and Germans have.

Correct me if I’m wrong - I’ve never been there - but the German system has always seemed pretty similar to the UK system? Walk-up fares on every route, cheaper fares if you book in advance.

 

[Howardh]

How do you justify someone aged 25-39 paying double of someone aged 40-59?

Good point. Should be the same.

 

[JonathanH]

How do you justify someone aged 25-39 paying double of someone aged 40-59?

Indeed, if anything, that should be the other way round, although I still don't think such an offering would be revenue generative.

 

[yorksrob]

Correct me if I’m wrong - I’ve never been there - but the German system has always seemed pretty similar to the UK system? Walk-up fares on every route, cheaper fares if you book in advance.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of the German 49 Euro flat fare or the Austrian climate ticket.

 

[Gaelan]

I was thinking of something more along the lines of the German 49 Euro flat fare or the Austrian climate ticket.

Oh, duh, my bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2023 ==

Similar in a way to Scotland’s (fantastic!) U22 bus passes or England’s £2 bus fares (actually not sure, is this a subsidy or just a price cap?)

Interesting that both the Scottish and English governments are going out of their way to make busses cheap but not trains. I guess busses are a lot more significant to most people’s daily travel (outside the south east, Glasgow, and Liverpool, at least), but still, annoying that it widens the price gulf between the two even more.

 

[Haywain]

England’s £2 bus fares (actually not sure, is this a subsidy or just a price cap?)

It's both - a price cap that is subsidised.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh, duh, my bad.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 May 2023 ==

Similar in a way to Scotland’s (fantastic!) U22 bus passes or England’s £2 bus fares (actually not sure, is this a subsidy or just a price cap?)

Interesting that both the Scottish and English governments are going out of their way to make busses cheap but not trains. I guess busses are a lot more significant to most people’s daily travel (outside the south east, Glasgow, and Liverpool, at least), but still, annoying that it widens the price gulf between the two even more.

Indeed. The bus fare initiatives are good and well suited to local journeys (they work for individual bus routes rather than journeys).

 

[RT4038]

It's both - a price cap that is subsidised.

Voluntarily entered into by individual bus companies.

 

[Richardr]

I saw the following posted on Twitter (by @sc_wadsy) and felt the forum may find it interesting as a matter for discussion. I've condensed it down from a series of tweets (originally posted nearly 4 weeks ago) for ease of reading.

D. Single leg pricing, but you get 30% more discount on the return ticket if you buy one at the same time

I'll add my name to those not understanding this part. It sounds like a return to me if it has to be bought at the same time. It also wouldn't fit in with the increased use of contactless - which means the return leg isn't purchased at the same time as the outward leg.

 

[islandmonkey]

If they made a Railcard for All, abolished the rest, and then jacked up the price to pay for it (for example £300 for three years) I'd still buy it as I know that I would still pay the upfront cost back over 3 years.

Also, I find it silly that season tickets more or less end up having the same discount as a Railcard. What would the revenue implications be to make season tickets 50% of the upfront ticket cost?

 

[yorksrob]

If they made a Railcard for All, abolished the rest, and then jacked up the price to pay for it (for example £300 for three years) I'd still buy it as I know that I would still pay the upfront cost back over 3 years.

Also, I find it silly that season tickets more or less end up having the same discount as a Railcard. What would the revenue implications be to make season tickets 50% of the upfront ticket cost?

£300 is too much.

Maybe somewhere nearer £100.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they made a Railcard for All, abolished the rest, and then jacked up the price to pay for it (for example £300 for three years) I'd still buy it as I know that I would still pay the upfront cost back over 3 years.

Also, I find it silly that season tickets more or less end up having the same discount as a Railcard. What would the revenue implications be to make season tickets 50% of the upfront ticket cost?

Some seasons, eg from Southampton to London, have a far greater discount than that, when I last checked a weekly season still cost only about 40% of 5 anytime fares, ie a 60% discount. But you can never generalise about season to anytime ratios. Hence flexi seasons being useless on so many flows.

Even standardising that relationship between anytime and weekly season would cause chaos.

 

[Gaelan]

£300 is too much.

Maybe somewhere nearer £100.

out of curiosity, other countries' all-ages discount schemes:
Austria - €99/yr (£86; 50%)
France - €49/yr (£42; 30% on TGVs, complicated elsewhere)
Germany - €59.90/yr (£52; 25%) or €244/yr (£212; 50%)
Netherlands - €67.20yr (£58; 40% off-peak) or €320.40/yr (£278; 40% off-peak and 20% peak)
Switzerland - CHF 185/yr (£164; 50%)

So £100/yr for 33% is definitely on the pricy end, but not "laugh out of the room" pricy.

 

[yorksrob]

out of curiosity, other countries' all-ages discount schemes:
Austria - €99/yr (£86; 50%)
France - €49/yr (£42; 30% on TGVs, complicated elsewhere)
Germany - €59.90/yr (£52; 25%) or €244/yr (£212; 50%)
Netherlands - €67.20yr (£58; 40% off-peak) or €320.40/yr (£278; 40% off-peak and 20% peak)
Switzerland - CHF 185/yr (£164; 50%)

So £100/yr for 33% is definitely on the pricy end, but not "laugh out of the room" pricy.

Indeed, but we seem to be incapable of delivering continental style value for money for passengers.

 

[RT4038]

out of curiosity, other countries' all-ages discount schemes:
Austria - €99/yr (£86; 50%)
France - €49/yr (£42; 30% on TGVs, complicated elsewhere)
Germany - €59.90/yr (£52; 25%) or €244/yr (£212; 50%)
Netherlands - €67.20yr (£58; 40% off-peak) or €320.40/yr (£278; 40% off-peak and 20% peak)
Switzerland - CHF 185/yr (£164; 50%)

So £100/yr for 33% is definitely on the pricy end, but not "laugh out of the room" pricy.

£100/yr would compare reasonably with Germany/Switzerland. It would enable the fares to go up for infrequent users, and those currently with railcards, and leave those who currently have no railcards to pay about what they do now.