Idea for ticket pricing

[sheff1]

So when it comes to York - Sheffield, for example, where there are currently three walk up fares with an Anytime Return, Anytime Day Return and an Off-Peak Day Return all of of which are Routed: Any Permitted we'd presumably need at least nine fares for this journey. As there are at least three routes that have services at present (via Leeds, Doncaster and Pontefract).

Any of the permitted routes between Sheffield and York would fall within Zone E in the OP.

And, before you ask, I am not going to respond to Yorkie's demand for specific fares. I did so maybe three years back (that was concerning a mileage based, rather than zonal suggestion) but the reply was ignored and then a few months later another suggestion prompted a demand for specific prices for a different set of journeys.

As I said then, the early discussion about a suggestion should not immediately jump to a demand for specific fares for journeys of particular interest to one poster. Rather the discussion should explore the general principles of what is proposed. It is quite clear that such a discussion is not welcome on here - we only got to post #3 this time before the 'spoiling' post (with yet another selection of journeys ) appeared !

 

[globetrotter]

The problem with radical changes is not privatisation per se, but having signed a contract with numerous operators one can't just change all the terms halfway through. I'm also suggesting that if all TOC contracts expire on some future date they can then be re-let on a different basis.

Italy has fares based on the train used - the faster the train the higher the fares seem to be. I assume that it's also distance based, it certainly appears to be.

I don't know of anywhere outside the UK with permitted routes, easements, negative easements, 3 mile and direct train rules, peak trains, anytime tickets that are not valid any time, one month open returns, huge variations in prices for a point to point journey depending on the route and the TOC. Certainly it makes Railforums an interesting place

 

[greatkingrat]

Any of the permitted routes between Sheffield and York would fall within Zone E in the OP.

But you are inevitably going to have some routes where one option is 39 miles and the other is 41 miles, leading to a big difference in fares.

 

[najaB]

But you are inevitably going to have some routes where one option is 39 miles and the other is 41 miles, leading to a big difference in fares.

How about in those cases - where the routes are within a few miles of each other - the lower fare applies to both routes.

 

[bb21]

It's not a privatisation issue at all. How many mileage based fares system are there left now in the world now? That's a genuine question, because I don't know!

Chinese railway fares are strictly mileage based, and there are in fact fare charts for corresponding distances, depending on the type of train.

They are however completely reservation compulsory, so this system works. There is no interavailable fare, and should a change of travel plan be required, one must amend the booking before boarding.

 

[Oscar]

Fair(er) is not necessarily complex. I think I've just explained in my post on the Northern restrictions thread about why the current system is neither fair nor complex.

Distance-based pricing is widely used for local ("regional"; as opposed to "Intercity" or high speed) services across continental Europe. Sometimes this does lead to price differences for routes or slightly different lengths but I've rarely heard this cited as a concern in the countries concerned. Pricing differently for different categories of train (e.g. "Intercity"/"regional") generally causes a lot more confusion. Here's a good analysis of the problems: http://www.stagniweb.it/tarif11.htm (in Italian, perhaps an online translator can make sense of it). Two suggestions for solving the problem of different fares for different routes are:
- not using strictly distance-based pricing but amending it slightly to keep the two routes the same price, as happens in Switzerland (don't publish price per km but keep fares close to it as far as possible).
- price zonally. The physical size of the zones can differ so this is another form of market-based pricing but one which is perhaps clearer for passengers to understand. It is used for pricing of local fares across a lot of Europe.
Group ticket is also an issue which needs to be addressed.
In many countries in Europe local fare levels are set thoughtfully by regional transport authorities. Long-distance fares are normally completely market based and are set by the national railway company and open access operators where they exist. Though many countries have serious rail pricing weaknesses in many opinion, fare levels are generally more consistent and therefore viewed better by passengers.

 

[yorkie]

And, before you ask, I am not going to respond to Yorkie's demand for specific fares. I did so maybe three years back (that was concerning a mileage based, rather than zonal suggestion) but the reply was ignored and then a few months later another suggestion prompted a demand for specific prices for a different set of journeys.

I am happy to calculate the prices, but I'd need the necessary information to make such calculations!

Without knowing what the formula and rates are, how can we say whether or not such a system is viable?

Going back 3 1/2 years:

• Rail ticket 'revolution' could cut journey prices by up to a third
• My idea to simplify fares
• Ripped off by the railway (post #69 onwards)
• Proposal to price by distance travelled (rather than market based pricing)

I can't find details of your proposals, so I guess it was further back. If you can provide a link or provide details of how to make the calculations that would be useful.

I am happy to calculate the fares myself if I am shown how!

As I said then, the early discussion about a suggestion should not immediately jump to a demand for specific fares for journeys of particular interest to one poster.

It's not an unreasonable request for "one poster" to ask how fares would actually be affected by such a proposal. However it was not just me who was asking, as a quick look through those threads will show. e.g. my questions were quoted by another member, someone else stated they'd asked me to post my questions, and numerous people expressed doubts that abolishing market based pricing was viable.

So, no it's not "one poster" who wants to know how fares would actually be affected.

Rather the discussion should explore the general principles of what is proposed. It is quite clear that such a discussion is not welcome on here - !

I don't know how such a conclusion can be reached. We have had plenty of such discussions and I am up for such a discussion providing the full details are given.

But how can you discuss something that has completely unknown impacts, especially when it comes to journeys so different as York-Whitby and York-London?

If someone wants to make a proposal for a new system, I am very interested to hear the details, but if there are no details, it's surely not unreasonable to conclude it's not actually a proper viable proposal?

we only got to post #3 this time before the 'spoiling' post (with yet another selection of journeys ad appeared !

If that post is enough to completely 'spoil' the proposal, then it was surely not a viable proposal in the first place! Unless you close lines like the Whitby line, the fact is that they do exist, and people who use them will be concerned to learn exactly what the impact of any such proposal would be.

 

[Metrailway]

It's not a privatisation issue at all. How many mileage based fares system are there left now in the world now? That's a genuine question, because I don't know!

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of rail networks use a distance based fare system to some extent. Certainly Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, India and China all use price per km for the basis of some if not all fares.

 

[jon0844]

I do think that distance based charging will eventually be the way it goes, perhaps with weighting for faster trains and other variations for cities. As said many times, there will be winners and losers - but it WILL be more simple for the most part.

You could still have discounted advance tickets and other deals.

I am not sure how else you could try and fix the current mess, without creating another massive mess. At least by copying what is done elsewhere (where it works) is a good foundation to start from.

But rest assured, ATOC would cock it up and want to take a workable idea from somewhere else and then change it so it would end up just as complicated as now.

 

[globetrotter]

In the link is a recent article on pricing by SNCF, which looks at many of the issues and explains the current pricing of tickets in France where of course SNCF still enjoys a monopoly.

Prices are based on distance, but it's much more complicated than that. SNCF has a maximum price cap only on 2nd class fares, but can charge less if it chooses as well as offer a range of discounts.

Long distance rail ticket pricing has to take into account competition from other modes of transportation such as airlines.

http://www.traconference.eu/papers/pdfs/TRA2014_Fpaper_18375.pdf

 

[FenMan]

I do think that distance based charging will eventually be the way it goes, perhaps with weighting for faster trains and other variations for cities. As said many times, there will be winners and losers - but it WILL be more simple for the most part.

I don't think so. Take the Blackwater Valley to London flows on three different routes:-

Camberley (32 miles by road and 35 miles by rail)
Typical off peak journey time: 1h12m

Farnborough (34 and 33 miles)
Typical off peak journey time: 0h37m

Blackwater (34 and 42 miles)
Typical off peak journey time: 1h00m

Tickets from Blackwater and Farnborough are priced pretty much the same. Camberley is slightly cheaper due to the lengthy journey time.

Switching to mileage-based pricing would make the lightly used Camberley trains even less popular whilst the Blackwater - London flow would become completely uncompetitive as fares would have to rise by nearly 30%.

 

[telstarbox]

Perhaps the OP could identify some current fares which he thinks are currently too expensive or too cheap to aid the discussion.

 

[sheff1]

I spent some time doing a lengthy reply to yorkie which then disappeared during transmission . I don't have time to do it again but the final point was that, on a route I used today, the fares for a Standard walk up return are:

A to D £17.90
B to D £16.80
C to D £19.70

A, B, C & D are on a linear route with A being the furthest away from D and C being the closest.

In my opinion £17.90 would be a reasonable fare from A, B or C to D and a zonal structure would facilitate this. It would mean the fare I paid today would increase, but the fare between the two stations I actually used would decrease - I would not 'lodge an objection' .

The current fares would just seem 'wrong' to a reasonable person - how can the fare for the shorteset journey on the same train be the dearest ?

Actual stations deliberately not stated due to recent events following disclosures of anomalies on here.