LNER Single Fare Pricing - is there a fairer alternative?

[Sm5]

Interesting concept, but what would this look like? Could you please provide the cost per mile of the following journeys:

• York - Whitby (if you would charge different prices depending on routeing via Darlington or Yarm, please detail these)
• York - Doncaster (if you would charge different prices depending on routeing via Leeds, Selby or direct, please detail these)
• York - Sheffield (if you would charge different prices depending on routeing via Leeds, Pontefract or Doncaster, please detail these)
• Peterborough - Leicester
• Peterborough - Nottingham (if you would charge different prices depending on routeing via Leicester or Grantham, please detail these)

If any of the above would be subject to subsidies, discounts or surging, it would be interesting to learn what you have in mind.

Cost per mile is exactly that….

We have nationwide track access charges for rolling stock already, so there must be a basis on what those figures are dervied from.

Whilst Barmouth bridge might be a maintenance cost difference compared to 1 mile of wcml its overall aggregate cost of the network… with a profit margin attached.

if thats 50p a mile, then thats what it is.

Theres nothing to stop “insert any government body, trade group” of your choice offering to subsidize that per mile rate, for specific lines, regions, time periods etc

it also makes it easier for railcard discounts to be applied.

Indeed I think that level of openness would be refreshingly transparent, and the public may appreciate that their “line of personal choice” is being subsidized.

But what it would do is eradicate the myriad of intricacies that exist today and make it a very simple arithmetic... London - Manchester 220 miles. If you want to go off piste via Leeds.. Ding yah, but if its via Stoke vs Crewe makes no difference if using sensible measuring sticks.

 

[Iskra]

Cost per mile is exactly that….

We have nationwide track access charges for rolling stock already, so there must be a basis on what those figures are dervied from.

Whilst Barmouth bridge might be a maintenance cost difference compared to 1 mile of wcml its overall aggregate cost of the network… with a profit margin attached.

if thats 50p a mile, then thats what it is.

Theres nothing to stop “insert any government body, trade group” of your choice offering to subsidize that per mile rate, for specific lines, regions, time periods etc

it also makes it easier for railcard discounts to be applied.

Indeed I think that level of openness would be refreshingly transparent, and the public may appreciate that their “line of personal choice” is being subsidized.

But what it would do is eradicate the myriad of intricacies that exist today and make it a very simple arithmetic... London - Manchester 220 miles. If you want to go off piste via Leeds.. Ding yah, but if its via Stoke vs Crewe makes no difference if using sensible measuring sticks.

It would create as many intricacies as well as a large number of ludicrous situations that would undermine revenue by discouraging travel.

The only way of using a one size fits all approach would be price per mile based on as the crow flies distances between stations, rather than as the track goes. However, even that would probably create some unusual results, but it would be fairer in my opinion.

 

[yorkie]

Cost per mile is exactly that….

Proposals for a purely mile based pricing structure start off as exactly that; once the problems get highlighted the proposals then morph into a myriad of prices per mile for all sorts of scenarios, which then lead to very complex fares which are a hybrid of two systems without truly being one or the other.

We have nationwide track access charges for rolling stock already, so there must be a basis on what those figures are dervied from.

Yes we can calculate the miles actually travelled, but what would you based it on, when a customer asks for a York to Sheffield return?

Whilst Barmouth bridge might be a maintenance cost difference compared to 1 mile of wcml its overall aggregate cost of the network… with a profit margin attached.

if thats 50p a mile, then thats what it is.

Theres nothing to stop “insert any government body, trade group” of your choice offering to subsidize that per mile rate, for specific lines, regions, time periods etc

They could but then it's not exacltly a cost per mile.

it also makes it easier for railcard discounts to be applied.

I'm not convinced that it does.

Indeed I think that level of openness would be refreshingly transparent, and the public may appreciate that their “line of personal choice” is being subsidized.

I don't think that would justify a change; the change needs to stack up on its own merit.

But what it would do is eradicate the myriad of intricacies that exist today and make it a very simple arithmetic... London - Manchester 220 miles. If you want to go off piste via Leeds.. Ding yah, but if its via Stoke vs Crewe makes no difference if using sensible measuring sticks.

Are you thinking tickets would be priced by the shortest route, with on board staff issuing excess fares to people who deviate, or would you introduce a myriad of route options, or make every single ticket bespoke depending on what the customers itinerary is? Or something else?

I'm still none the wiser as to how the tickets would actually be priced, but I'm all ears if anyone can explain it!

 

[RT4038]

It's not unreasonable to ask how a proposed mileage based pricing scheme would work; if you are saying it's unreasonable to expect the mileages to be known, I am happy to provide these.

Quite, but that is not what you asked. You asked for the 'cost per mile', implying £1.32 or 78p or something . To calculate that would require a lot of information about current revenue, which is not available. So any number would be a pure guess, which no doubt would be pilloried immediately. If you know what the mileages are, I'm not exactly sure what you were asking? That is chargeable mileage, or some such?

The rail network is based on market based pricing, so this would mean some fares being priced well below the market rate, while others are priced well above it. The Whitby line isn't going to be financially viable if you charge the same rate per mile as (say) Reading to Paddington.

I think that is what the system of subsidies and discounts would take into account, so different lines, or sections of line would have different rates per mile? Calculations would take that into account on through tickets, so each portion is calculated at the correct rate.

The opposite of the current system, where journeys of a medium distance are typically more expensive than short hop journeys! But it's all well and good to come up with a theory but how would this work in practice?

And journeys of medium distance would continue to be more expensive than short hop journeys. A possible taper would work (hypothetical numbers you understand) first 1-5 miles £1.50 per mile, then next 6-10 £1.25, 11-19 £1.00 etc. or some such. Short hops could never be more expensive in total to a medium distance journey

So instead of a York to Sheffield ticket, we'd have lots of different routeing options e.g. via: Harrogate & Goldthorpe, via Leeds & Goldthorpe, via Doncaster only, via Selby & Doncaster, etc etc? Sounds complicated to me.

I never said it was not going to be complicated! As if the present system isn't complicated, without any transparent basis. If the passenger bought a ticket for the train that they were going to travel on, then they could be charged the actual mileage. If there were multiple routes with only small differences in mileage then an average could be taken, weighted based on passenger and/or train usage.

Revenue neutral is a theoretical concept based on the idea that some people will be attracted to rail while some may be lost and/or that some people buy cheaper tickets while others pay more. Even with powerful supercomputers running complex models, it's just an estimate at the end of the day.

Indeed, until it is worked out, it is difficult to debate, as it's a very theoretical concept which cannot easily be visualsed as to the actual impact.

Yes. However, demanding those figures from posters to try and discredit their idea is a little unfair, is it not? I know you were thinking about the issues caused by certain anomolies, but it was a bit of a heavy way to do it!!! And there would be winners and losers , as is constantly pointed out.

I think to work it out would require initially a scheme for a portion of the network to see the likely effects and reduce the initial workload, because I suspect that the winners and losers getting upset would scupper any wholesale change to the way fares are currently set.

Where exactly is the boundary of this? Would a fare that straddles the boundary be charged with some miles at one rate and another at the other rate?

Presumably

That sounds like a very large premium to travel via Leicester, wheras today such a premium does not exist. The 2012 train goes that way; the Guard should excess everyone on board going to Nottingham?

I think you are trying to knock down the proposal by clutching at straws of one train! Either the 20h12 stops going that way, a ticket for travel on that train is at a higher price, or there would be an easement to take the few passengers into account. It would not be a show stopper, nor any reason to discredit. Winners and losers.

How could the railway refuse to service this market? You can abolish the through fare but then people could simply split. Not everyone wants to take a bus. The bus may be more direct but lacks toilets, it's slow for the distance travelled, and doesn't operate as late as trains do.

I don't think 'refusing to serve' is quite the right phrase. The railway would merely be uncompetitive in that market.

 

[Sm5]

Proposals for a purely mile based pricing structure start off as exactly that; once the problems get highlighted the proposals then morph into a myriad of prices per mile for all sorts of scenarios, which then lead to very complex fares which are a hybrid of two systems without truly being one or the other.

Yes we can calculate the miles actually travelled, but what would you based it on, when a customer asks for a York to Sheffield return?

They could but then it's not exacltly a cost per mile.

I'm not convinced that it does.

I don't think that would justify a change; the change needs to stack up on its own merit.

Are you thinking tickets would be priced by the shortest route, with on board staff issuing excess fares to people who deviate, or would you introduce a myriad of route options, or make every single ticket bespoke depending on what the customers itinerary is? Or something else?

I'm still none the wiser as to how the tickets would actually be priced, but I'm all ears if anyone can explain it!

I think its being overly thought.
KISS… keep it simple stupid.

if I fly london to san francisco, I get approx 5500 airmiles, fixed… it doesnt matter if the plane flies further north or further south..takes off NW of SE.
its the published itiniery the plane flies.
That mileage changes if I connect, but then thats the published itiniery that I am chosing.

if I take a train London to Manchester, its 220 mile +/-. As long as i’m travelling a valid route then thats the fare, whether I take a direct train, change trains or go via Macclesfield or Wilmslow or p1 or 19 really doesnt matter for pricing purposes.

If I go to manchester via carlilse ive obviously gone off route.

every single line is mapped in this country for distance. The rail routes of every service is document.
Therefore pricing a route via the path of least resistance (ie the timetabled route that most passengers take) would give me a distance between two points.

no one is going to measure to the chain the route the passenger takes, but published route distances for each line will give an accurate end to end distance, joining them together and hence the basis of the ticket pricing catalog X cost per mile.
All thats needed then is use the same guidance as today for the valid “routing via“ possibilities that may occur.

Lets say its 25p a mile, the (ive not measured any exactly, its just an example…)

Euston to Manchester is c220 miles so £110.
East Croydon to Victoria is c11 miles so £5.50
Edinburgh to Glasgow is c50 miles is £25

if the Scottish Government wants to subsidize 10% off scotrail, then on the ticket make it clear… £22.50 + £2.50 scottish gov subsidy.
If dft wants to offer a mileage discount ( ie tiers… 1000m, 10k miles, 50k miles its far more attractive to regular travellers, and offers option for business travel contracts).


This isnt rocket science, its simply applying a SKU to a commodity ( p per mile) and offering discounts.. same as any other global business does today. Its also how HMRC offers mileage allowance against rails biggest competitor.

 

[yorkie]

I think its being overly thought.
KISS… keep it simple stupid.

if I fly london to san francisco, I get approx 5500 airmiles, fixed… it doesnt matter if the plane flies further north or further south..takes off NW of SE.
its the published itiniery the plane flies.
That mileage changes if I connect, but then thats the published itiniery that I am chosing.

if I take a train London to Manchester, its 220 mile +/-. As long as i’m travelling a valid route then thats the fare, whether I take a direct train, change trains or go via Macclesfield or Wilmslow or p1 or 19 really doesnt matter for pricing purposes.

If I go to manchester via carlilse ive obviously gone off route.

every single line is mapped in this country for distance. The rail routes of every service is document.
Therefore pricing a route via the path of least resistance (ie the timetabled route that most passengers take) would give me a distance between two points.

Ok so York to Sheffield will be priced via Leeds, but if taking a shorter route, it will be cheaper to "split" at Pontefract or Doncaster?

no one is going to measure to the chain the route the passenger takes, but published route distances for each line will give an accurate end to end distance, joining them together and hence the basis of the ticket pricing catalog X cost per mile.
All thats needed then is use the same guidance as today for the valid “routing via“ possibilities that may occur.

Lets say its 25p a mile, the (ive not measured any exactly, its just an example…)

Euston to Manchester is c220 miles so £110.

That's a lot more than the cost of travel at off peak times.

East Croydon to Victoria is c11 miles so £5.50

At any time? This is actually in between the current PAYG fares but considerably less than the cash fare. If you plan for congested routes into London to have Anytime fares as low as this, it's going to be a huge reduction in cost for journeys such as Reading to London. Who pays for the shortfall? But it will be an increase in cost for many doing return travel at off peak times. You could have a mixture of crush loaded trains at some times and almost empty trains at other times.

Edinburgh to Glasgow is c50 miles is £25

For a one way single at any time? Ouch!

if the Scottish Government wants to subsidize 10% off scotrail, then on the ticket make it clear… £22.50 + £2.50 scottish gov subsidy.
If dft wants to offer a mileage discount ( ie tiers… 1000m, 10k miles, 50k miles its far more attractive to regular travellers, and offers option for business travel contracts).

It's funny how mileage based pricing has to have all sorts of adjustments to make it remotely palatable.

This isnt rocket science, its simply applying a SKU to a commodity ( p per mile) and offering discounts.. same as any other global business does today. Its also how HMRC offers mileage allowance against rails biggest competitor.

Mileage allowance is a totally different concept to rail fare pricing.

It isn't rocket science but then rocket science is going to be based on actual logic. This seems to be a case of making things up for the purpose of ticking a box and not actually meeting the needs of anyone.

Market based pricing may seem unfair and many rail fares are far too expensive, but ditching market based pricing almost entirely is probably an unwise move.

 

[Sm5]

The Serpell report suggested way back in 1982 that rail needed a subsidy of 25p per mile fro everything considered provincial back then. Today that would be pretty much everything that is not Mainline, XC, London, PTE areas.

It also said average was 5.5p per mile.

Today 25p is £1.13 per mile.

Thats a staggering amount of subsidy.

However its invisible, to the consumer, who doesnt appreciate it, as demonstrated in the response to my examples.
It is however present in data..

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/559655/rail-subsidy-indicator.xls

highest is around 51p per mile at one point, Northern being the culprit.
if your travelling between Manchester and Preston return, the first £30.60 of your trainfare is subsidized by the tax payer.


If railways are to get on top of its costs. It needs to also get on top of its revenues.
Why Glasgow to Edinburgh is so heavily subsidized, yet is between two of the UKs larger citadels is a clear example why pricing should be less opaque.

As the example also suggested some routes would decrease in fares, would that lead to an increase in demand ?

its not all negative stuff, its demand and supply. If you want people off roads, the rail needs to supply at a rate that makes sense… the car rate is 45p a mile according to HMRC.

Random pricing doesnt work, as split save ticketing demonstrates, pence per mile would eliminate this confusive mess immediately.

 

[RT4038]

As the example also suggested some routes would decrease in fares, would that lead to an increase in demand ?

Yes it may increase demand, but would it put any more money in the till? If the railways thought that reducing fares would put more money in the till (after taking into account the expenses of providing additional capacity to cope with the additional demand) I feel sure they would have discovered this already.

its not all negative stuff, its demand and supply. If you want people off roads, the rail needs to supply at a rate that makes sense… the car rate is 45p a mile according to HMRC.

Random pricing doesnt work, as split save ticketing demonstrates, pence per mile would eliminate this confusive mess immediately.

There are so many other factors apart from pricing that will influence whether people travel by rail or not. Inducing demand is the easy bit - catering for that demand at an acceptable cost is quite another issue.

The main problem with moving to a mileage based fares system is the winners and losers from the current system.

 

[Sm5]

Agreed.

But the North right now is enjoying an economic boom, the likes unseen in decades. is it justified that it maintains a 35-51p per mile subsidy to keep its
prices so artificially low ?

Same question for key routes in Scotland, why approaching c100 miles of travel between its two highest points of wealth should cost less than c20 miles of travel around London, arguably including one of its poorest ?

There is a big disparity.
The agenda is levelling up.
paying equal per mile fares is aligned to that.
Current fares are not.

Talking about winners and losers in the current system is basically saying protect todays winners and keep those losers losing. Yet the nations industrial and economic landscapes are shifting and closer balancing.

A survey of shifting rail habits, who, what, where and when is needed imo. Simply switching out returns for singles suggests to me, know one knows.

 

[Richardr]

But the North right now is enjoying an economic boom, the likes unseen in decades.

Seriously?

 

[David Goddard]

Received a marketing email from LNER bragging about how their new setup will be more flexible.
Emailed them in response asking how they define flexible when we will have to buy singles which are valid for one (op) or two (anytime) days whereas the current returns are valid for up to five days on the outward leg and a month on the return.
Awaiting a reply still…

 

[XAM2175]

Received a marketing email from LNER bragging about how their new setup will be more flexible.
Emailed them in response asking how they define flexible when we will have to buy singles which are valid for one (op) or two (anytime) days whereas the current returns are valid for up to five days on the outward leg and a month on the return.
Awaiting a reply still…

If you replied directly to the marketing email you'll be waiting a very long time.

 

[wilbers]

If you replied directly to the marketing email you'll be waiting a very long time.

LOL. Into the blackness of the "do not reply to email address" oblivion, not even to reach the round circular filing cabinet.

At least I now see why distance based pricing isn't used; it appears to make sense until you look at the details. Might be useful as a starting point for pricing managers (such as when a new route starts), but that seems to be about it.

 

[yorkie]

Received a marketing email from LNER bragging about how their new setup will be more flexible.
Emailed them in response asking how they define flexible when we will have to buy singles which are valid for one (op) or two (anytime) days whereas the current returns are valid for up to five days on the outward leg and a month on the return.
Awaiting a reply still…

They would never answer a question like that as they know any answer could be used against them.

LOL. Into the blackness of the "do not reply to email address" oblivion, not even to reach the round circular filing cabinet.

At least I now see why distance based pricing isn't used; it appears to make sense until you look at the details. Might be useful as a starting point for pricing managers (such as when a new route starts), but that seems to be about it.

Agreed; people who advocate mileage based pricing go on to admit that each section of track would need to have its own price and any detailed questions about how it would work are placed in the 'too difficult ' pile.

 

[David Goddard]

If you replied directly to the marketing email you'll be waiting a very long time.

No, im not that stupid. I forwarded to their customer service team.