I think we're all in agreement that..

[Oswyntail]

Firstly, to be totally radical, take fares completely away from TOCs. Set the fares between all stations centrally, have a set structure (including AP, no rationing) applicable to all. Restrictions on time to be set centrally (with the possibility of arguing for local needs), but clearly marked on timetables. So, from the start, the paying customer has a much clearer idea of what is on offer, and can be confident about it wherever they are in the country.
This would leave the TOCs much less in control of one side of the revenue stream. So they could then concentrate on maximising use of their product. Because, after all, they are holding "franchises", and should be made to behave like them.
Focus on the customer, look after the staff and the profit inevitably follows.

 

[glynn80]

glynn80 - it's completely clear from a wide range of datasets that many journeys that were considered long-distance at the time BR removed long-distance CDRs are no longer considered long-distance. An obvious example is the GWML, where trains have been refitted to commuter spec to reflect the fact that that's now their primary market.

Journeys like London-Edinburgh are obviously a red herring, but London-Bristol, London-Leeds and London-Manchester now make complete sense as day trips - both because the trains are faster and because the population is more geographically dispersed. So it's highly likely that the reasons they were unprofitable under BR no longer apply.

Just because a journey is technically possible to complete within a day, does not mean there is a market for that journey and does not mean that it makes economic sense introducing a day ticket for that journey. I think it very likely that "Day" tickets on medium to long distance flows are not economically attractive to TOCs and it is very likely they reduce revenue yields (for example by people purchasing Day Tickets when making Single journeys, where previously the cheapest walk-up ticket was an SVS). TOCs such as TPE and Central Trains both had policies of CDR removal and infamously removed CDRs on numerous flows.

...and no other tickets, would be good. The point about easements making absolute national rules difficult for restricted times is a good one, but nonetheless it would be possible to set standard availability times based on arrival to / departure from London for all London tickets.

This has actually already occurred really with the introduction of Oyster.

 

[johnb]

On the CDR point, I suspect you're wrong about lack of demand, but suspect you're depressingly right about revenue maximisation.

On the Oyster point - that only covers tickets within London, not tickets to or from London - what I'm saying is that peak restrictions into/out of Euston, St Pancras, Paddington, etc should be the same.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, this is clearly an emotive issue. I shaln't attempt to suggest a complete makeover of the system, however, there are a couple of things that have occured to me as a traveller which will presumably have occured to others which would improve the situation.

Firstly, I would standardise the off/on peak time restriction to nine O'clock. The railway would be able to extend this for a particular train but only in the passengers favour.

Secondly, I would introduce a return ticket over 2 or 3 days. This would allow people travelling over a shorter distance to stay overnight whilst protecting the railway from scamming which might arise from longer period short distance returns.

Thirdly, whilst advance purchase is a valuable tool to allow the railway to match demand to supply, I would restrict the ratio of difference between the most expensive standard fare and the cheapest advance fare. This would allow the railway to continue to manage demand without allowing it to exploit the situation with unrealistic walk on fares.

Fourthly, I would specifically allow stopping or starting short on any journey. This would mean that should any anomolies arise, it would be squarely for the railway to resolve.

Fifthly, I agree with previous posters that it might be time to review the the distance over which cheap day returns are available, being that travel patterns have changed and journey times have decreased.

 

[yorkie]

Well until the early 70s, distance priced ticketing had worked since the inception of railways.

So pray do tell what is the issue with the journeys that you quote, and which were previously distance charged.

I'm willing to listen to how the proposal would work in practice before making a judgement or further comment. The examples I ask for should be sufficient for me to get an idea for how it would work, I think 3 examples only should be easy to give. I look forward to the details

 

[Old Timer]

I'm willing to listen to how the proposal would work in practice before making a judgement or further comment. The examples I ask for should be sufficient for me to get an idea for how it would work, I think 3 examples only should be easy to give. I look forward to the details

I really do not see what your issues here are.

I dont have the ability just now to work out the distances, but in fact that is irrelevant because you are paying proportionately for the distance travelled.

Obviously the journey could be taken via different routes and would be charged accordingly if the two flows were considered to be different.

So again, tell me what I am missing.

Distance based pricing was prevalent between 1947 to 1968, however a more market led approach (priced by each Business Sector) was introduced in 1968 which allowed more flexibility in fare setting. In general, fares were increased in line with inflation, with above inflation rises if improvements were deemed to have occurred to services (e.g. new investments), or if it was judged that such rises could be borne by the market.

Yes I am fully aware of that, however the base fare for such calculations was still distance based and then modified.

The same applied with season tickets which were certainly still distance priced until at least 1980.

 

[glynn80]

So again, tell me what I am missing.

I will repeat this example again.

On flows such as Lancaster to Carlisle, which route do you calculate the distance under, the shortest route, even if there are parallel routes with much greater distance? If the distance for the above flow was calulcated via Penrith, the fares on the Cumbrian Coast would be in disarray because any fares from Lancaster to north of Sellafield (which is of almost equal distance to that of Lancaster to Carlisle via Penrith) would be purchased cheaper if they were issued to Carlisle (the Cumbrian Coast is a permitted route on Lancaster to Carlisle fares).

 

[Ferret]

I will repeat this example again.

On flows such as Lancaster to Carlisle, which route do you calculate the distance under, the shortest route, even if there are parallel routes with much greater distance? If the distance for the above flow was calulcated via Penrith, the fares on the Cumbrian Coast would be in disarray because any fares from Lancaster to north of Sellafield (which is of almost equal distance to that of Lancaster to Carlisle via Penrith) would be purchased cheaper if they were issued to Carlisle (the Cumbrian Coast is a permitted route on Lancaster to Carlisle fares).

I guess you could use route specific tickets then?

 

[generalvegitable]

I will repeat this example again.

On flows such as Lancaster to Carlisle, which route do you calculate the distance under, the shortest route, even if there are parallel routes with much greater distance? If the distance for the above flow was calulcated via Penrith, the fares on the Cumbrian Coast would be in disarray because any fares from Lancaster to north of Sellafield (which is of almost equal distance to that of Lancaster to Carlisle via Penrith) would be purchased cheaper if they were issued to Carlisle (the Cumbrian Coast is a permitted route on Lancaster to Carlisle fares).

as I said, the tickets would be charged for the stated or the shortest route

 

[glynn80]

I guess you could use route specific tickets then?

That proposal would remove all routeing freedom from passengers. It would be a disaster for passenger interests and would never be a politically acceptable decision.

Also it does not remove all anomalies. If we take the Lancaster to Carlisle example again, the fare to Aspatria (one station before Carlisle) would be more expensive than Lancaster to Carlisle (the shortest route to Aspatria is WCML to Carlisle and then Cumbrian Coast over to Aspatria). Therefore if you wanted to bring in distance based pricing on that route, you would also need to remove the ability for passengers to catch any direct train which has been a core benefit going back decades.

 

[yorkie]

as I said, the tickets would be charged for the stated or the shortest route

What are the actual prices? If you are using mileage by rail you can find them in the NRT or here http://mileage.railmiles.org/

 

[generalvegitable]

*facepalm* sure we'll charge by air mile, so mileage by road to the nearest airport to the start point, plus the distance by air between the airports, plus the nearest airport to the destination plus the road miles to the destination and they must be different airports, or we could do the rail miles

 

[Ferret]

That proposal would remove all routeing freedom from passengers. It would be a disaster for passenger interests and would never be a politically acceptable decision.

Also it does not remove all anomalies. If we take the Lancaster to Carlisle example again, the fare to Aspatria (one station before Carlisle) would be more expensive than Lancaster to Carlisle (the shortest route to Aspatria is WCML to Carlisle and then Cumbrian Coast over to Aspatria). Therefore if you wanted to bring in distance based pricing on that route, you would also need to remove the ability for passengers to catch any direct train which has been a core benefit going back decades.

Sounds like a comprehensive argument against pricing based on miles travelled to me!!!! I'm of the opinion that whatever system you come up with, it's never going to be perfect. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[ashworth]

A CDR from London-Edinburgh was perhaps a silly example for me to have used but I just used it to make a point. All I meant was that CDR should be available for all longer distance return journeys that can sensibly be done in a day
However, NatEx East Coast and now East Coast in recent months have had lots of special offers that have allowed passengers to do very long journeys up and down the ECML for only £9 single and I, and many others, have been using them for quite long distance day trips.
Myself and a group of friends are doing a day trip from Newark to Edinburgh in February for £18 return. A day trip that I wouldn't have made at full price. Although £18 is very cheap.

At present there is a CDR from Newark to London at £37.50 which is certainly better than the cheapest walk on fare from nearby Nottingham to St Pancras at just over £50.
That's what I meant fares like the one from Newark to London should be available for all journeys of that type with even larger reductions on less busy routes.

There are so many journeys where it would be so much more convenient to be able to buy one CDR rather than having to play the system by splitting longer journeys into a series of CDR's. I also admit that whenever I travel from Nottingham to Liverpool returning the same day I get a CDR to Prestatyn at only £22.50 rather than pay £45 for a ticket to Liverpool. If there was a more sensibly priced CDR to Liverpool at around £22 then people wouldn't need to cheat.
From Nottingham CDR's are needed to places like Liverpool, London, York, Norwich, Bristol, Newcastle, Oxford etc etc etc.
That is the same for similar journeys, especially to tourist destinations, all over the country

 

[A60K]

That proposal would remove all routeing freedom from passengers. It would be a disaster for passenger interests and would never be a politically acceptable decision.

I agree - Germany for example has very specific routing instructions on each ticket, with different length routes between two points generally being priced differently.

While this means that prices for any particular journey are fair, and there's little or no advantage to split tickets, or to start or end short, it is rather restrictive compared to our system.

Whereas we can just buy a normal ticket from say Lowestoft to Portsmouth and use it via any permitted route, AIUI under the German system you would probably have several different tickets with different prices because of distance differences, and be routed something like this on the ticket:
via Sax*Ips*Col*LON*Wok*Gui*Has
via Nrw*Ips*Col*LON*Red*Hor*Chi
via Nrw*Ely*Cbg*(Stv/Hlw)*LON*Wok*Bas*Win*Hdg
plus all the other possible combinations for routes that are currently valid with an Any Permitted, and each with a different price.

As Glynn80 points out such a system would have us all up in arms.

 

[Helvellyn]

I'd go the whole hog and set up a Government commission to review fares. The reason I'd do this is that any sort of tinkering with this or that element of the current system would start to have impacts on the revenue generated by TOCs. Now as complicated as the fares system is - and it is damn complicated - each TOC won its franchise based upon bussiness cases it put forward. If halfway through a franchise a major change takes place to fares that would impact that, then there is an issue for the TOC.

My reasoning for this being a mass review is not just because it would necessarily impact on the TOCs. Various things that were ring fenced at privatisation also need to be looked at. Annual Season Tickets have some protection price wise, yet many leisure fares do not. Routings were ringfenced. So the whole thng needs looked at in my opinion, to ensure that every element of the fares system is looked at. This would likely mean some fares would end up higher, and some lower.

Revive an old organisation name to be an arbitration body on fares - Railway Clearing House. Where flows are not operated by one TOC, then they have to agree these fares through the RCH, so we don't have the situation whereby a longer distance journey can cost less than a shorter one because a different TOC prices it, e.g. Havant to London (Any Permitted) priced by SWT is more expensive than Emsworth to London (Any Permitted) priced by Southern.

If anything is to be done with fares it needs to be radical. Rip up the routing books and fare tables, and start again.

Have the following Day tickets: -

Day
Cheap Day
Super Cheap Day

Have the following period tickets, i.e. 28 days: -

Open
Saver
Super Saver

These could all be available as singles too where distance did not provide a Day version, so people could use them in combination with an Advance ticket.

Yes, that reverses the names from Fares simplification but I don't believe those worked, and they added more confusion. Advance would stay as just that though.


As for a national railcard, I'd say any Annual Season ticket should be a Gold Card. Then allow it's use as a railcard nationally too. Individual TOCs could decide if they want to allow First Class upgrades, complimentary tickets, etc.

The Network card should be extended nationally, keeping the 10:00 start time and a minimum fare.

PlusBus should be much, much more heavily promoted. Perhaps also introduce regional Travelcards, e.g. West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, that would allow travel on buses, trams and trains in those areas like the London version.

 

[John @ home]

whenever I travel from Nottingham to Liverpool returning the same day I get a CDR to Prestatyn at only £22.50 rather than pay £45 for a ticket to Liverpool. If there was a more sensibly priced CDR to Liverpool at around £22 then people wouldn't need to cheat.

It's not cheating. See post 30 above.

 

[yorkie]

I would just charge about 10p per mile in standard class, and 20p per mile in first class, on the shortest or specified route ....

okay so let's look at some sample fares.

York-London would be 18.60 in standard for a single. That seems incredibly low! So it's not going to be affordable for the Government, who would have to lay on many more trains to cater for the massive demand. The A1 would be quieter I'm sure! A shortage of 125mph stock would cause a bit of a problem to cater for demand so the IEP would have to be ordered quickly. 4-tracking of Welwyn and the extra platform at Finsbury Park would be essential to avoid massive overcrowding.

York-Whitby is 85 miles, so a return is going to cost 17 pounds, a huge increase over the present cost of 11.50 which competes with the bus. The train no longer competes, as it is both slower and more expensive.

Peterborough-Leicester now costs more than Peterborough-Nottingham, that means that customers going to Nottingham lose the option of going via Leicester as that is presumably no longer valid. Peterborough-Leicester customers are heavily penalised for the railway taking a zig-zagging route. But with prices as low as 10p per mile, maybe that wouldn't matter.

Personally I'd support the huge tax rise to make the fares so low, but I don't think the snobs who go everywhere in their own private vehicles would be, so it just isn't going to happen.

If you then raise the price from 10p/mile to 20p/mile, York-London is still pretty reasonable but York-Whitby becomes a joke and Peterborough-Leicester would be up from 16.90 to 21.00 despite being a very slow route, and I could see Nat Ex running a regular coach service to kill off the train there.

Tain to Golspie would lose out (if only the new bridge had accommodated the railway line eh?), and imagine all the excesses being issued on XC trains via Leeds compared to via Donny. At least you'd get a discount for using the Baghill stopper.

In some cases you'd be paying a premium to not use HS1. That would go down well, but at least it would be fair as the premium on XC to go via Leeds would keep people on the ECML as far as Donny and the premium to go via Northampton would encourage passengers to use Virgin rather than London Midland, again pricing them off the slow trains, in a reversal of fortunes!!!

 

[John @ home]

PlusBus should be much, much more heavily promoted.

A couple of years ago, I was a critic of the lack of promotion of PlusBus scheme. I now think the promotion aspects are quite good. Regional leaflets show PlusBus fares for each city and many towns, and are displayed at every major railway station I visit, and some bus atations.

I think the next step needed for expansion of PlusBus is selling PlusBus tickets on the bus. I seldom buy PlusBus tickets because many of my leisure journeys are dependent on factors such as weather, so I usually have to pay £3.20 for an operator-specific bus day ticket rather than a £3 PlusBus ticket.

I've been thinking how PlusBus tickets could be sold on the buses. It is not realistic to expect bus drivers to sell all the rail tickets that can be combined with PlusBus. The bus operators would not allow PlusBus tickets to undercut their operator-specific day tickets for non-rail passengers. Perhaps the answer would be to charge me £5 for a PlusBus ticket sold on the bus, which would then give me £2 credit towards the purchase of a rail ticket at the railway station.

Perhaps also introduce regional Travelcards, e.g. West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, that would allow travel on buses, trams and trains in those areas like the London version.

I think these multi-journey zonal tickets now exist in all the PTE areas, and I would expect those Integrated Transport Authorities which don't have them to want to introduce them.

 

[First class]

A Chester - Nottingham route Stoke on Trent CDR costs £16.70 until 1 January, £17.00 from 2 January, is available M-F from 0830 departing Chester, and is permitted via Liverpool using maps CH+EM. Break of journey is explicitly allowed, so the ticket can be used from and to Liverpool.

If you want to avoid Stoke on Trent, a Prestatyn - Nottingham route Any Permitted CDR costs £22.20 until 1 January, £22.60 from 2 January, is available M-F from 0715 departing Prestatyn, and is permitted via Liverpool and Sheffield using maps CL+PS. Again, break of journey is explicitly allowed, so the ticket can be used from and to Liverpool.Break of journey is not allowed with a £22 Super Off-Peak Return (OPR) Liverpool - London route London Midland only.

SUPER OFF-PEAK

Ticket Code: OPS/SSS
Ticket Class: STANDARD
Ticket Name: SUPER OFF-PEAK
Single/Return: SINGLE
Out Validity:-
Day - DATE ON TICKET
Time - SEE BELOW
Break of Journey: YES
Pre-Booking Requirement: NONE
Reservations Compulsory: NO
Child Discount: YES
Railcard Discount: YES
Refunds: See 'Refunds' section

 

[John @ home]

Liverpool-Birmingham - If off peak you may as well buy a £22 OPR to London and break at Birmingham!!

Break of journey is not allowed with a £22 Super Off-Peak Return (OPR) Liverpool - London route London Midland only.

SUPER OFF-PEAK

Ticket Code: OPS/SSS
Ticket Class: STANDARD
Ticket Name: SUPER OFF-PEAK
Single/Return: SINGLE
Out Validity:-
Day - DATE ON TICKET
Time - SEE BELOW
Break of Journey: YES
Pre-Booking Requirement: NONE
Reservations Compulsory: NO
Child Discount: YES
Railcard Discount: YES
Refunds: See 'Refunds' section

Both the Super Off-Peak Single (OPS) and the Super Off-Peak Return (OPR) Liverpool - London route London Midland only take restriction LK.

In NFM 03, valid until September 2009, break of journey was allowed with restriction LK. In both the current NFM 04 and NFM 05, valid from next week, the text of restriction LK includes the sentence:

National Fares Manual NFM 04 & NFM 05
Restriction : LK
Break of journey is not permitted except to change trains at an intermediate station or to access station facilities.

But, as First class demonstrates above, the Break of journey line has not been amended to reflect this change. A conflict in consumer terms, I think.

 

[ashworth]

It's not cheating. See post 30 above.

Perhaps 'cheating' was the wrong word to use.
However, I am sure that people know what I mean. I actually find it good fun to discover interesting loopholes in the system and make good use of them to save money.
A CDR fare to somewhere as far away from Nottingham to Prestayn, and indeed all along the North Wales Coast as far as Llandudno and even as far as Llanfairfechan, should not be half the price of a return to Liverpool because there is no CDR to Liverpool.

 

[hiddeneurope]

I find this a very interesting debate, with many thoughtful contributions. My perspective on the matter is much influenced by having watched over the last few years many national operators on the continent shift from strictly distance-based tariffs to market pricing. That shift has been hugely controversial, especially in Germany where the media love to mock the growing complexity of German rail fares. Yet the reality is passengers numbers are up, and the majority of passengers buying Fernverkehr (ie. long distance) tickets now pay some sort of discounted fare rather than the full kilometre-based tariff.

Looking at how operators in Poland, Austria, Germany, Italy, etc. have used market freedoms to develop innovative pricing, I would suggest a number of way to improve the current UK system.

1. There is I think (please correct me if I am wrong) no UK-wide programme that rewards frequent travellers and no UK-wide railcard available to everyone. In Germany, there is a BahnCard programme. Pay a one-off fee of about €200 and you then get a 50% discount for a year on all tickets. The card costs much more if you want to buy half price first class tickets. Equivalent schemes exist in the Czech Republic and Switzerland. Naturally, in the UK market (where there is hugely more commuting than on the continent) it would be appropiate to place a morning peak time restriction, just as with some existing UK railcards (eg. Young Persons or Network Railcards).

2. Create greater inter-operator availability of Advance tickets. From my limited understanding of the UK, it seems to me that my chances of finding a really cheap deal are determined more by my intended route (and which TOC serves that route) than anything else. As mentioned on another thread, I snapped up a couple of London to York tickets for 9 quid each during a recent East Coast promotion. Great, but I wonder if anyone travelling from March to Aberystwyth or Yeovil to Dover ever benefits from such ridiclously cheap fares. This evident shortcoming in the present system might be addressed through the introduction of a more regulated approach to advance fares, such as we see in the German market. Say an entry-level Advance fare of 25 pounds single for any long distance journey in excess of 150 miles (analagous to the German Dauer-Spezial of €29 for any jouney in excess of 250 km), bound to particular trains where these are capacity controlled, but with more interavailablity between operators. It seems to me I can travel ridiculously cheaply from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML, but as soon as I try to book Tunbridge Wells to Dundee via London, the MML to Sheffield, then Settle & Carlisle, I am penalised for using less busy routes.

3. Introduce far greater fare transparency, so standardised tariff increments across all TOCs for promotional fares. For example 25 pounds, then 35 and 45 for advance fares (perhaps a 15 pound entry level for short hops up to 150 miles).

4. Have a maximum one way fare anywhere in the UK of, say, 120 pounds standard class (180 in first). This is common in many European countries. It actually leads to little revenue dilution, for most folk making very long journeys book in advance. But its psychological impact is considerable, especially as would-be travellers evaluate the merits of plane vs. car vs. train. And the pulling power of rail travel becomes very strong when a nationwide maximum fare can be discounted by 50% for holders of a layalty card like that I described in Point 1 above.

5. If I - as an averagely bright human being (I hope) - find it hard to understand the ATOC Routing Guide, then it is too complicated. In theory, it is an excellent idea, potentially hugely better than any equivalent I know on the continent, but in its implemention it leaves much to be desired. The mere fact that is has been updated so frequently of late attests to its underlying shortcomings.

I trust these few thoughts are of interest.
Nicky

 

[Old Timer]

That proposal would remove all routeing freedom from passengers. It would be a disaster for passenger interests and would never be a politically acceptable decision.

Also it does not remove all anomalies. If we take the Lancaster to Carlisle example again, the fare to Aspatria (one station before Carlisle) would be more expensive than Lancaster to Carlisle (the shortest route to Aspatria is WCML to Carlisle and then Cumbrian Coast over to Aspatria). Therefore if you wanted to bring in distance based pricing on that route, you would also need to remove the ability for passengers to catch any direct train which has been a core benefit going back decades.

Ferret is quite right. Exactly HOW do you think tickets were priced years ago with a whole lot more lines and different Railway companies ?

You buy a ticket via a route. If you pay for a longer route it is valid the shorter.

Examples went well into BR days.

For example Bedford Midland Road to London was routed normally to St Pancras, but you could travel via Hitchin if that suited but you paid extra compared to the St Pancras one.

Another Bedford case, this time from St Johns. London tickets available via Bletchley to Euston or via Sandy to Kings Cross but at different prices. Both tickets though valid from Midland Road to St Pancras.

The former RCH and now ATOC produced routes against which tickets were priced and issued.

Your Aspatria comparison makes no sense.

Firstly it is not the last station before Carlisle. Secondly it is on the Cumbrian Coast and nowhere near Carlisle. Thirdly its cost would relate to the distance from Carlisle.

It is quite interesting that those who shout loudest about fares anomallies uisng selective pricing and claiming its unfairness are also those who shout loudest that mileage based charging is also unfair.

It is either one or the other guys ?

 

[glynn80]

Ferret is quite right. Exactly HOW do you think tickets were priced years ago with a whole lot more lines and different Railway companies ?

Ferret is quite right about what? That is is the right solution to the problem our rail ticketing system has in this country? I don't really want to reply to this point as I am not clear what exactly you are trying to say (quite a common occurrence with you).

You buy a ticket via a route. If you pay for a longer route it is valid the shorter.

Examples went well into BR days.

For example Bedford Midland Road to London was routed normally to St Pancras, but you could travel via Hitchin if that suited but you paid extra compared to the St Pancras one.

Another Bedford case, this time from St Johns. London tickets available via Bletchley to Euston or via Sandy to Kings Cross but at different prices. Both tickets though valid from Midland Road to St Pancras.

The former RCH and now ATOC produced routes against which tickets were priced and issued.

I actually have an old Routeing Guide from 1952 which uses a system very similar to that you describe above, in that it was recursive. What I mean by recursive is that if a ticket was valid from A-B-C within the guide but also within the guide B-C allowed travel via D, A-B-D-C would be a permitted route.

If the above sounds complicated let me give you an example. If the guide states that travelling the route from Penzance to Birmingham New Street via Taunton and Bristol is a permitted, and also within the guide, you looked up the permitted routes between Taunton and Bristol and found that the route via Westbury was permitted, then the route Penzance to Taunton to Westbury to Bristol to Birmingham New Street would be valid. So basically all tickets with validity between Taunton and Bristol and permitted to take the route via Westbury regardless of whether Taunton or Bristol was a destination printed on your ticket.

But if instead you had a system whereby wherever there were two parallel routes, there would always be two route specific fares and the higher of those fares would be the Any Permitted. However that then creates a situation whereby all the lines with parallel routes, the shorter of the two parallel routes have their Any Permitted fares increased due to having a longer parallel route adjacent.

Your Aspatria comparison makes no sense.

Firstly it is not the last station before Carlisle. Secondly it is on the Cumbrian Coast and nowhere near Carlisle. Thirdly its cost would relate to the distance from Carlisle.

Have you read nothing I have posted? I will explain it again in more detail which I hope even someone as difficult as you will be able to understand.

If I am travelling from Lancaster to Aspatria, the shortest route is via the WCML to Carlisle, with a mileage of 89 miles 17 chains. However if I am travelling from Lancaster to Maryport, the shortest route is via the Cumbrian Coast with a mileage of 92 miles 78 chains. Therefore if you are pricing tickets on a pure per mileage basis, Lancaster to Maryport will be more expensive than that of Lancaster to Aspatria. The problem thus lies in that there are direct trains from Lancaster to both Maryport and Aspatria (via the Cumbrian Coast), where Maryport is a stop before Aspatria but with a higher price. So anomalies occur there where I could purchase the cheaper Aspatria ticket for my journey to Maryport. The only way to remove anomalies like those when pricing on a pure per mileage basis, would be to remove one of the fundamental rights passengers have had for decades, the right to travel by direct train and force passengers to travel the shortest route for their journey.

I do admit though that yes, Aspatria is not the last station before Carlisle there is still Wigton and Dalston to go, but the point I made above still stands and that really is an irrelevance to the argument I am trying to portray.

It is quite interesting that those who shout loudest about fares anomallies uisng selective pricing and claiming its unfairness are also those who shout loudest that mileage based charging is also unfair.

If you are insinuating at myself, please find a post by me complaining about the current system of fares anomalies being caused by market pricing, as I can tell you I certainly am not "shouting loud" about anything of that nature.

 

[Old Timer]

Ferret is quite right about what? That is is the right solution to the problem our rail ticketing system has in this country? I don't really want to reply to this point as I am not clear what exactly you are trying to say (quite a common occurrence with you)..

Only you seem to have this problem. Let me put it simply for you. Ticket prices from the year dot have been calculated on a mileage basis, and they will always have to be related to distance otherwise the whole system would collapse upon itself.

Selective pricing has only been around for less than 40 years. For the previous 150 odd years mileage based pricing worke fine. For anyone to say that it would not is to fail to understand the underlying basis of how fares were derived.

I actually have an old Routeing Guide from 1952 which uses a system very similar to that you describe above, in that it was recursive. What I mean by recursive is that if a ticket was valid from A-B-C within the guide but also within the guide B-C allowed travel via D, A-B-D-C would be a permitted route..

You could have saved yourself the time of giving me a lecture, as in all probability I was dealing with ticket sales and issues before you were born. Not a snide comment but a matter of fact. I am familiar with such arrangements indeed on the more popular routes I could probably still recall the varying route availabilities, as I held a job at one point which involved looking at routing issues.

Have you read nothing I have posted? I will explain it again in more detail which I hope even someone as difficult as you will be able to understand..

Maybe if you made your posts read a little better ?

If I am travelling from Lancaster to Aspatria, the shortest route is via the WCML to Carlisle, with a mileage of 89 miles 17 chains. However if I am travelling from Lancaster to Maryport, the shortest route is via the Cumbrian Coast with a mileage of 92 miles 78 chains. Therefore if you are pricing tickets on a pure per mileage basis, Lancaster to Maryport will be more expensive than that of Lancaster to Aspatria. The problem thus lies in that there are direct trains from Lancaster to both Maryport and Aspatria (via the Cumbrian Coast), where Maryport is a stop before Aspatria but with a higher price. So anomalies occur there where I could purchase the cheaper Aspatria ticket for my journey to Maryport. The only way to remove anomalies like those when pricing on a pure per mileage basis, would be to remove one of the fundamental rights passengers have had for decades, the right to travel by direct train and force passengers to travel the shortest route for their journey..

There will always be such situations. They exist even today as I recall you tend to point out over various posts. The RCH dealt with these on a case by case basis. True selective pricing would actually emphasise the difference based upon train services, quality, etc.

As I have said before I am sure, there will always be anomalous situations, indeed they exist now. Mileage based pricing would not create the absurd and totally illogical scenarios that have been debated here at some length and indeed some heat.

Most of these debates have been created by selective pricing decisions which are both illogical as well as confusing to everybody but presumably the person who "invented" the price. I say invented simply because the price bears no relationship to any other similar ticket.

It is quite clear that mileage based pricing with obvious adjustments for service standards as practiced by BR should form the basis against which selective pricing should be decided. At least this would work towards ridding the Industry of some of the absurdities that now exist.

 

[glynn80]

You could have saved yourself the time of giving me a lecture, as in all probability I was dealing with ticket sales and issues before you were born. Not a snide comment but a matter of fact. I am familiar with such arrangements indeed on the more popular routes I could probably still recall the varying route availabilities, as I held a job at one point which involved looking at routing issues.

Well Old Timer, thankfully it is not just me and you on this forum and I posted it not just for your satisfaction but to inform others who also happen to stumble upon this topic. You of course maybe omnipotent in the post-war period of UK rail fares but not everybody else is.

Maybe if you made your posts read a little better ?

I think this is being very hypocritical considering that I very rarely can pick out the precise points are trying to get across in your posts.

There will always be such situations. They exist even today as I recall you tend to point out over various posts. The RCH dealt with these on a case by case basis. True selective pricing would actually emphasise the difference based upon train services, quality, etc.

How would RCH deal with the situations such as those mentioned above? I would be interested to know?

As I have said before I am sure, there will always be anomalous situations, indeed they exist now. Mileage based pricing would not create the absurd and totally illogical scenarios that have been debated here at some length and indeed some heat.

I think if true mileage based pricing was introduced it would create the illogical scenarios described. However I also doubt that true mileage pricing would ever be introduced and something more likely would be fares linked to mileage and then scaled up or down depending on route quality and investment levels etc. These factors must be accounted for to have economic efficiency.

Most of these debates have been created by selective pricing decisions which are both illogical as well as confusing to everybody but presumably the person who "invented" the price. I say invented simply because the price bears no relationship to any other similar ticket.

The current pricing levels can usually be traced back to rational decisions are very rarely invented as you claim. What does occur however is a lack of transparency with regard to those decisions, which leaves both the public and media very sceptical of the rail industry in general. To illustrate the rational behind some of those decisions, research undertaken in 2005/6 found the majority of long distance rail fares at their profit maximising level, utilising fare elasticity at the critical value of - 1.

The rate at which passenger demand falls off when fares are increased is termed the fares elasticity ef, and a critical value of this occurs at ef = - 1: at smaller values, increases in fares lead to increases in revenue, but at larger values, increases in fares lead to decreases in revenue, as the higher fares deter more people from travelling. In fact, many long-distance fares elasticities in Britain are around the "1 mark, which is profit-maximising, and therefore has considerable economic sense.

Emphasis added personally

It is quite clear that mileage based pricing with obvious adjustments for service standards as practiced by BR should form the basis against which selective pricing should be decided. At least this would work towards ridding the Industry of some of the absurdities that now exist.

I'm not sure it is "quite clear" as you state. BR abandoned distance based pricing in 1968 and they did that for good reason, that being it was not economically efficient to price high value routes such as the ECML at the same rate as say for example rural under utilised routes. Routes such as the ECML have had significant investment and have passengers willing to pay higher prices to reflect that investment (i.e. they have a greater degree of elasticity). If the fares system does not take account of that, revenue yields will decrease to very low levels and a much greater degree of subsidy would be needed to keep the current network running. This is basic economics!

 

[Old Timer]

You of course maybe omnipotent in the post-war period of UK rail fares but not everybody else is.!

Your tendency towards sarcasm not only to me but to others is not particularly appealing and does tend towards damaging what on occasions have been valuable points.

I would prefer we could debate without this.

I'm not sure it is "quite clear" as you state. BR abandoned distance based pricing in 1968 and they did that for good reason, that being it was not economically efficient to price high value routes such as the ECML at the same rate as say for example rural under utilised routes. Routes such as the ECML have had significant investment and have passengers willing to pay higher prices to reflect that investment (i.e. they have a greater degree of elasticity). If the fares system does not take account of that, revenue yields will decrease to very low levels and a much greater degree of subsidy would be needed to keep the current network running. This is basic economics!

Which is what I said in the last paragraph of my last post.

 

[glynn80]

Your tendency towards sarcasm not only to me but to others is not particularly appealing and does tend towards damaging what on occasions have been valuable points.

Sarcasm is defined as "the rhetorical device of using a characterization of something or someone in order to express contempt." I express contempt (and quite rightly in my opinion) when frankly I feel something either idiotic or irrational has been posted. In this case it was that you were complaining that I was posting background information on a public forum as if it were just me and you having a singular debate. I do apologise however if it in some way offended you as it was intended as sarcasm and nothing else.

Which is what I said in the last paragraph of my last post.

OK

 

[dan_atki]

I would prefer we could debate without this.

And so would I. If we could be more civil towards each other in your posts then it would be appreciated.