If you are booking on a journey planner, they don't exist. It's only the very small number of people who look at BRFares (and similar) who are even aware of them. Thee vast majority simply look at how much they are asked to pay when they try to book a journey.
I've no idea what the revenue split is for an Any Permitted ticket from Taplow on flows via London?
They can be used so your premise is false.
Indeed and we do sell those tickets.
As I've mentioned, the times are inconvenient, but they can be used.
Do you seriously think anyone would buy such an itinerary? You arrive in London at a reasonable time and then wait several hours for the late night GWR train that calls at Taplow. If you know about split ticketing and spot the GWR restriction you might try a Slough or London split to avoid it but many people just check plausible journeys using what comes up on timetable and ticket sites.
And (as has been mentioned several times now) they'll be sold a ticket that's about 15% more that lets them get any train company.
I would agree that there's only a limited case for them, especially since many of them only offer a small saving in exchange for the huge reduction in flexibility (and inability to excess up to an "Any Permitted" ticket if your plans change).
Who is the "proper" operator though?
This is only the case because with walk-up tickets, the rail industry doesn't know which company was used. If they knew which service you used, there would be no carving up of revenue. If walk-up tickets survive at all into the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see proposals to use things like scan data for e-tickets to allocate revenue more accurately. Scans on trains will almost always be definitive as very few people will break their journey and most rail journeys involve a direct train, whilst barrier scans could be cross-referenced against the timetable to determine the most likely journey opportunity, especially if there's more granular data on the closest platform to a barrier.
I think that's perhaps an uncharitable way of looking at it. OAOs have to satisfy the ORR that they'll bring enough additional revenue to the industry (i.e. pass the "Not Primarily Abstractive" test) for their applications to be approved. Many of the places that they serve haven't had a (frequent) London service for years.
As I mentioned upthread, there's a reasonably local example of a (not insignificant) flow not having been updated for 7+ years after a change in the network, so I really wouldn't rule it out...
The one that operates a frequent service, without which the small 'turn up and go' market segment that still exists, wouldn't exist.
In what used to be NSE, it would still be turn up and go and apply to the majority of the market. That applies to the lines out of Paddington, So ticketing rules that would confine passengers to the half hourly GWR services as against the more frequent TfL services really should not be allowed.
You’re totally missing the point of these tickets they are a First Group connection so they keep all the money, I doubt this is by accident.
How about ones that confine you too less than one train an hour out of Kings Cross instead of the quarter hourly LNER service?
In NSE days there was no such thing as a TOC-restricted long-distance ticket so you would be paying the full interavailable walk-up fare if you wanted flexibility. Equally, there weren't more than one or two direct services from London to Hull a day.
It's not so much about the revenue impact, it's the fact that within First Group, it will be considerably easier and quicker to get these fare agreements and settlements set up and approved, whereas getting the likes of Elizabeth line is going to involve considerably more effort and, anything involving, TfL, substantially more time and bureaucracy.
Why isn't there an &connections ticket at a higher price? I still suspect cockup rather than conspiracy as they simply didn't bother to update the restriction code when TfL took over most of the local services out f Paddington.
If you are travelling to Hull, a through service is convenient. Also it's a long distance service where with an Advance ticket you expect to take a specific train. I don't see these considerations apply to a metro like frequent service such as the local stations between Paddington and Reading. If you don't want an Advance, the extra price, not great, to get the flexibility of any permitted may well be worthwile, for the Hull to Doncaster leg at least.
There doesn't need to be. As the previous poster pointed out, an agreement with TfL and GWR would be required to offer tickets valid on both operators. How would the &connections bit be constrained to be valid on Elizabeth Line, but not on Northern or any other operator serving the route?
Not all the tickets are to Hull. From Doncaster there's more non-Hull trains an hour than stations like Burnham and Taplow see on the Elizabeth Line.
That suggest one of 2 things:
As often happens, off peak tickets with different route codes tend to have different time restrictions. If someone who intends to catch a Hull Trains train has a choice between an anytime ticket with one route and a super off peak ticket with a different route, there could be far more than a couple of pounds in it.
I don't think any retailer encourages people to buy tickets which cannot be used in their entirety, but some do advertise them.
There are some routes (such as Cardiff-Doncaster or Gloucester-Hull) where you can buy a flexible GWR/Hull Trains ticket but not an advance one. Neither ticket has a ✠ on it, so you probably can't get an itinerary via London*, but you don't need an itinerary to buy a flexible ticket.
The comment you are replying to was a specific reference to Advance tickets, and only those discussed at the start of the thread.
