Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I have known for years from living in Leeds and visiting friends in the southwest how to split tickets. Even when I was doing so, people would ask if I had to get off the train at each splitting point.
Splitting tickets is obviously now well known. How many lost out though?
My journeys on trains have now dwindled as I distrust the pricing mechanism. I don't want to be a mug. These forums do indicate there are many Cheat Modes going on behind the scenes - this is not the way to run a nationally important industry.
The railways are in general massively subsidised, so the more you use the railway, the more you will benefit from this subsidy.
The argument for simplification tends to assume that the railways should bring prices down so that longer journeys cost the same as splits currently do (and presumably subsidy goes up to cover the difference), but what would be more likely is that the splits go up in price to match the longer journey fares.
Unfortunately, without a political commitment at government level to make rail fares more affordable for passengers, no amount of "simplification" will make fares cheaper.
In Fact, the the latest attempt at "simplification" by LNER has managed to make some fares both more complicated and more expensive.
Although every time a story runs in the news about rip off fares then bit of own goal to encourage passengers. So losing any little used high fares reduces the risk of negative image.
The argument for simplification tends to assume that the railways should bring prices down so that longer journeys cost the same as splits currently do (and presumably subsidy goes up to cover the difference),
Now that it is widely known and recommended on respected sites like Martin Lewis, must be such a high proportion using splits (and railcards) that there is probably little long distance revenue from undiscounted journeys anymore. Potentially might be less subsidy needed if headline fares more accurately reflect the lower fares that majority actually pay, as it will attract more business
Now that it is widely known and recommended on respected sites like Martin Lewis, must be such a high proportion using splits (and railcards) that there is probably little long distance revenue from undiscounted journeys anymore. Potentially might be less subsidy needed if headline fares more accurately reflect the lower fares that majority actually pay, as it will attract more business
Split ticketing is some way from being the mainstream way of buying tickets. Most retailers don't offer it at all and, of those that do, the most significant do it in a very limited way. The idea that lower fares will require less subsidy is just fanciful thinking.
Do people who are not rail nuts think splitting is a bit dodgy? Or could cause them inconvenience or embarrasement?
Cant say I have discussed it outside the rail community.
Now that it is widely known and recommended on respected sites like Martin Lewis, must be such a high proportion using splits (and railcards) that there is probably little long distance revenue from undiscounted journeys anymore. Potentially might be less subsidy needed if headline fares more accurately reflect the lower fares that majority actually pay, as it will attract more business
Although in reality a lot of splits that did exist have been closed by now, and the majority of splits are likely advance splits, and the splits occur because of quotas on busier and quieter parts of the route.
And, assuming your alternative would have been to drive, the less you will benefit from the even greater taxpayer subsidy given to roads, which typically amounts to 100% of the cost of building and maintaining them. A similar point holds if your alternative to rail would have been National Express, Megabus, Flixbus etc.
To make the comparison of road and rail fair, we really ought to exclude spending by Network Rail, and spending by TOCs on track access charges, before we check to see if the revenue from fares covers the TOCs' remaining operational costs.
You seem to have a very strange way of looking at things if you're basing the decision on whether to travel or not based on a wholly theoretical 'problem' that you are paying more than you "should" for a ticket.
The reality is, for most people, they look at the fare on offer, and it's either acceptable, or it's not. If the amount is something you feel comfortable paying, why would you then not travel, just on the off chance you could have made a (likely small) saving?
Even Trainline and a couple of TOCs now support split ticketing, but you could never guarantee that a cheaper set of splits or other combinations didn't exist, even those most experienced on this forum could never be completely assured, the amount of computing power to get absolute assurance would be unsustainable, plus you then have to consider actually using the tickets - whether they're so problematic in terms of complexity (and unintentional validity) that it's not worth the hassle.
But again, just see what the ticket prices are, and if you like them or can tolerate them, travel. Don't worry about whether you could have potentially saved a little more.
Do a little bit of research yourself - it's hardly unreasonable or particularly difficult in 2024.
You seem to have a very strange way of looking at things if you're basing the decision on whether to travel or not based on a wholly theoretical 'problem' that you are paying more than you "should" for a ticket.
The reality is, for most people, they look at the fare on offer, and it's either acceptable, or it's not. If the amount is something you feel comfortable paying, why would you then not travel, just on the off chance you could have made a (likely small) saving?
Even Trainline and a couple of TOCs now support split ticketing, but you could never guarantee that a cheaper set of splits or other combinations didn't exist, even those most experienced on this forum could never be completely assured, the amount of computing power to get absolute assurance would be unsustainable, plus you then have to consider actually using the tickets - whether they're so problematic in terms of complexity (and unintentional validity) that it's not worth the hassle.
But again, just see what the ticket prices are, and if you like them or can tolerate them, travel. Don't worry about whether you could have potentially saved a little more.
Do a little bit of research yourself - it's hardly unreasonable or particularly difficult in 2024.
The reality is, for most people, they look at the fare on offer, and it's either acceptable, or it's not. If the amount is something you feel comfortable paying, why would you then not travel, just on the off chance you could have made a (likely small) saving?
But again, just see what the ticket prices are, and if you like them or can tolerate them, travel. Don't worry about whether you could have potentially saved a little more.
Customers in general don't like feeling like they've been ripped off.
It's all well and good saying "Don't worry about it", but particularly in a cost of living crisis where we've only just (technically) gotten out of a recession and some of the through fares are so incredibly expensive, a genuinely not insignificant number of passengers simply cannot afford to throw the money down the drain without a second thought (and if this is you, I would suggest that you spend some time reflecting on how your reality may differ from that experienced by others). They may also have no choice but to make that journey.
The OP raises a reasonable point about the amount of additional money that passengers may have paid unknowingly and often unnecessarily (for the exact same journey) over the years. I would suggest it's quite substantial.
Mileage based pricing died long ago. Journeys are priced like any other market product based on things like capacity, demand etc. Split tickets are an unintended consequence.
Would you prefer the Irish Rail model where splitting tickets is specifically banned to level the playing field?
Well yes, quite. It's often a case of "Be careful what you wish for", I think.
This is why ensuring that independent retailers can operate on the same level playing field as TOCs is a good thing for passengers, though - and has led to wider availability of split ticketing which I very much doubt would have happened otherwise.
The rational consumer has a reservation price and will pay any price at or below that level, but they will not pay any old price just because it is below their reservation price. Not if they're aware they can obtain a similar or identical product or service at a cheaper price.
That's microeconomics 101.
Of course imposing significant costs (in time) on the consumer if they want to discover whether a cheaper price is obtainable will annoy some consumers.
I appreciate, of course, the concept of the rational consumer is, to a great extent, notional. Consumers are human and we all have our own idiosyncrasies and foibles. But most people do try to act rationally, at least when we're thinking about it.
I expect I am unusual in that I will look up fares information even for local journeys that I don't plan to make regularly, and try to make an informed choice between single tickets (or PAYG, where available) or daily or weekly tickets , factor in any group discounts, etc. That's probably irrational, in that the time cost of doing so invariably outweighs any overpayment avoided.
It is increasingly difficult, however, to maintain that it isn't worth investing at least some time in trying to get the first price you're quoted for a rail fare down to a more sensible figure if it is for a longer trip and/or if it's a journey you intend to make regularly (especially if the first place you look doesn't consider splits, or doesn't consider multiple splits and yet still charges you a booking fee). I wouldn't describe people who make no effort in that regard as mugs, necessarily. Not unless there's a real want of understanding of the situation (as distinct from just not being very knowledgeable about train fares - we all have different levels of knowledge about different things). But the cost of behaving as Tazi suggests is often very high indeed.
There does seem to be an attitude from DfT on down that's perilously close to "why don't you just pay whatever we feel like charging you or sod off?" That's incompatible with legally binding net zero targets which can't be met without significant modal shift from road to rail, because not enough people are going to be able and willing to pay the first fare that's offered. I do sympathise with those who may be under pressure (which ultimately comes from the government) to squeeze more and more revenue from fewer passengers, but that won't stop me from thinking that's a short-sighted and extremely silly thing to be doing. If it were my job to do it, I would be looking for another job.
Mileage based pricing died long ago. Journeys are priced like any other market product based on things like capacity, demand etc. Split tickets are an unintended consequence.
Would you prefer the Irish Rail model where splitting tickets is specifically banned to level the playing field?
My biggest annoyance is having to book a journey at short notice and being charged four times what I could have got an Advance for if I'd known I'd need one a couple of weeks beforehand. My reasoning is, if they can afford to transport me from A to B on 30th June for £5 why do they need £20 to transport me on the same journey on 1st June. Too much investigation isn't always likely to provide reassurance that you're paying the going, realistic rate.
It is already enforced for PAYG in London, and there seem to be at least some revenue protection officials looking for evidence that e-tickets have been scanned at their origin.
The answer is by a change in the terms and conditions but perhaps not for speculating for the time being.
My journeys on trains have now dwindled as I distrust the pricing mechanism. I don't want to be a mug. These forums do indicate there are many Cheat Modes going on behind the scenes - this is not the way to run a nationally important industry.
People who invest time into getting the best deals get discounts. Same in any industry. People get massive bargains at Lidl or Aldi compared to just getting everything from Sainsburys, but it costs time. Supermarkets (the vast majority of food consumed in the UK is provided by them) are a far more important industry than rail (which accounts for a tiny percentage of travel)
I trust you will be arguing against supermarket loyalty cards, sites which make it easy to change your electricity provider, etc. Perhaps you are wistful for the day when you had a single phone provider and a 6 month wait for them to deliver a Standard Approved Rotary Phone.
I rarely use split tickets as I value flexibility, different routes etc, and varied timetables don't work for that.
But I do take advantage of other means. For example last week I travelled from London to Manchester on an off peak train, so bought an any route off peak return. I returned to Stoke on the return half. In about 2 weeks time I'll be continuing from Stoke to Birmingham, then staying for a couple of nights, then getting a train down to either Euston or Marylebone. Indeed I will likely use a "split ticket" on that as I may be starting further north at Alsager so be requiring an Alsager->Stoke ticket.
If you at concerned about being "ripped off" I suggest you don't look at airline tickets. I've been sat in a middle seat which costs £1500 before next to someone in the aisle who spent 1/4 of that. That's the price you pay for a direct flight at the last minute compared to a multi-hop ticket booked 5 months in advance.
And of course I suspect you'd have no problem with the largest discounts given - A Season Ticket from Stafford to Euston is £54 per day return (5 days a week, 52 weeks a year). A normal ticket is £235 for a peak return. Of course there are ways to save money (off peak, slower train, maybe advance tickets), but then those are "Cheat Modes".
It is already enforced for PAYG in London, and there seem to be at least some revenue protection officials looking for evidence that e-tickets have been scanned at their origin.
The answer is by a change in the terms and conditions but perhaps not for speculating for the time being.
But if you're split ticketing you will have more than one e-ticket or paper ticket, and will only have had the appropriate one for whichever part of your journey scanned.
I read it that split ticketing is not permitted, so you'd have to buy just one ticket for your entire journey, even if it's twice the price of its component parts when bought separately.
People who invest time into getting the best deals get discounts. Same in any industry. People get massive bargains at Lidl or Aldi compared to just getting everything from Sainsburys, but it costs time. Supermarkets (the vast majority of food consumed in the UK is provided by them) are a far more important industry than rail (which accounts for a tiny percentage of travel)
I trust you will be arguing against supermarket loyalty cards, sites which make it easy to change your electricity provider, etc. Perhaps you are wistful for the day when you had a single phone provider and a 6 month wait for them to deliver a Standard Approved Rotary Phone.
I rarely use split tickets as I value flexibility, different routes etc, and varied timetables don't work for that.
But I do take advantage of other means. For example last week I travelled from London to Manchester on an off peak train, so bought an any route off peak return. I returned to Stoke on the return half. In about 2 weeks time I'll be continuing from Stoke to Birmingham, then staying for a couple of nights, then getting a train down to either Euston or Marylebone. Indeed I will likely use a "split ticket" on that as I may be starting further north at Alsager so be requiring an Alsager->Stoke ticket.
If you at concerned about being "ripped off" I suggest you don't look at airline tickets. I've been sat in a middle seat which costs £1500 before next to someone in the aisle who spent 1/4 of that. That's the price you pay for a direct flight at the last minute compared to a multi-hop ticket booked 5 months in advance.
And of course I suspect you'd have no problem with the largest discounts given - A Season Ticket from Stafford to Euston is £54 per day return (5 days a week, 52 weeks a year). A normal ticket is £235 for a peak return. Of course there are ways to save money (off peak, slower train, maybe advance tickets), but then those are "Cheat Modes".
I read it that split ticketing is not permitted, so you'd have to buy just one ticket for your entire journey, even if it's twice the price of its component parts when bought separately.
No one can stop a passenger boarding a train at A, leaving a train at B, then starting a new journey at B, travelling to C with separate A to B and B to C tickets.
'Banning split ticketing' would entail forbidding a passenger from staying on the same train from A to C with tickets split at B. It would effectively just add an inconvenience of stepping back a train to the use of split tickets.
I have known for years from living in Leeds and visiting friends in the southwest how to split tickets. Even when I was doing so, people would ask if I had to get off the train at each splitting point.
Splitting tickets is obviously now well known. How many lost out though?
My journeys on trains have now dwindled as I distrust the pricing mechanism. I don't want to be a mug. These forums do indicate there are many Cheat Modes going on behind the scenes - this is not the way to run a nationally important industry.
It is not "cheating" but anyone who wants to benefit from the lower cost of shorter distance fares can do so, for example by using the forum's ticketing site (powered by Trainsplit).
Anyone who is particularly price conscious is probably aware of ticket splitting sites by now; no special knowledge is needed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The railways are in general massively subsidised, so the more you use the railway, the more you will benefit from this subsidy.
The argument for simplification tends to assume that the railways should bring prices down so that longer journeys cost the same as splits currently do (and presumably subsidy goes up to cover the difference), but what would be more likely is that the splits go up in price to match the longer journey fares.
Absolutely; fare reductions are not on the cards for the current Government, and my understanding is that Labour ruled it out (as reported in another thread on this forum a few weeks ago).
So we either have the current fares, or the lower priced fares go up in price. I know which I'd rather have!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Unfortunately, without a political commitment at government level to make rail fares more affordable for passengers, no amount of "simplification" will make fares cheaper.
True; none of the major political parties have any intention of reducing fares. Any hints at "simplification" are based on putting the lower priced fares up.
Now that it is widely known and recommended on respected sites like Martin Lewis, must be such a high proportion using splits (and railcards) that there is probably little long distance revenue from undiscounted journeys anymore. Potentially might be less subsidy needed if headline fares more accurately reflect the lower fares that majority actually pay, as it will attract more business
The DfT do not want more passengers, as this presents capacity problems; there isn't the funding available to increase capacity to match the potential demand.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite! Or the Italian model where long distance trains require reservations, and a journey between two suburban stations many miles apart requires split tickets (two local tickets and one compulsory reservation ticket for the intercity part; and no automatic right to jump on the next train by the relevant operator if a connection is missed!)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Very true; this is the same in aviation and much more.
However, for rail it is actually far more accessible to the average person, as sites work it all out for you, and will provide a single itinerary, and single PDF, so it's no more of a faff than having a through fare, where e-tickets are available.
No other industry has sites that work it all out, in the way that rail does, so anyone who complains about rail should be doubly complaining about other industries!
People get massive bargains at Lidl or Aldi compared to just getting everything from Sainsburys, but it costs time. Supermarkets (the vast majority of food consumed in the UK is provided by them) are a far more important industry than rail (which accounts for a tiny percentage of travel)
I trust you will be arguing against supermarket loyalty cards, sites which make it easy to change your electricity provider, etc. Perhaps you are wistful for the day when you had a single phone provider and a 6 month wait for them to deliver a Standard Approved Rotary Phone.
I rarely use split tickets as I value flexibility, different routes etc, and varied timetables don't work for that.
But I do take advantage of other means. For example last week I travelled from London to Manchester on an off peak train, so bought an any route off peak return. I returned to Stoke on the return half. In about 2 weeks time I'll be continuing from Stoke to Birmingham, then staying for a couple of nights, then getting a train down to either Euston or Marylebone. Indeed I will likely use a "split ticket" on that as I may be starting further north at Alsager so be requiring an Alsager->Stoke ticket.
If you at concerned about being "ripped off" I suggest you don't look at airline tickets. I've been sat in a middle seat which costs £1500 before next to someone in the aisle who spent 1/4 of that. That's the price you pay for a direct flight at the last minute compared to a multi-hop ticket booked 5 months in advance.
OK let's say the Anytime fares - purchased by a few people on business - were massively reduced; the Government insists that any such changes are "revenue neutral", so how many cheaper fares would have to increase to make up that shortfall? the answer is: quite a lot. This would not benefit the 'average' person, who would never buy those fares. By all means abolish them if subsidy increases to pay for it, but no way should they be abolished in the current political climate.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It can't be (in most cases), but it would be the end of sites such as ours, and therefore make it restricted to people who do their own research and take their own risks.
My biggest annoyance is having to book a journey at short notice and being charged four times what I could have got an Advance for if I'd known I'd need one a couple of weeks beforehand.
My reasoning is, if they can afford to transport me from A to B on 30th June for £5 why do they need £20 to transport me on the same journey on 1st June.
The £5 fare is a loss-leader. I suggest you research 'yield management' and 'market based pricing'; there is clearly a lot of reading available which you could learn from
OK let's say the Anytime fares - purchased by a few people on business - were massively reduced; the Government insists that any such changes are "revenue neutral", so how many cheaper fares would have to increase to make up that shortfall? the answer is: quite a lot. This would not benefit the 'average' person, who would never buy those fares. By all means abolish them if subsidy increases to pay for it, but no way should they be abolished in the current political climate.
"Revenue neutral" is a political choice of the motorcentric Establishment pure and simple.
We should be agitating for genuine fares reform that brings average fares down, along the lines of the peak abolition in Scotland, the Bahn card in Germany, the climate ticket in Austria.
"Revenue neutral" is a political choice of the motorcentric Establishment pure and simple.
We should be agitating for genuine fares reform that brings average fares down, along the lines of the peak abolition in Scotland, the Bahn card in Germany, the climate ticket in Austria.
That's not within the scope of this thread and is currently unfunded and not on the cards. Not only that, but it's not viable without an accompanying huge uplift in capacity.
Feel free to create a new thread and edit your existing post to link to it
It can't be (in most cases), but it would be the end of sites such as ours, and therefore make it restricted to people who do their own research and take their own risks.
Presumably one would need to travel with an assortment of different coloured pullovers, hats, wigs, glasses, false moustaches etc, so as to be able to assume a new identity as required between ticket checks?
If nothing else, illicit split-ticketing using advances would be inherently risky, since a missed connection at a split point would render your remaining advance ticket(s) worthless.
Do people who are not rail nuts think splitting is a bit dodgy? Or could cause them inconvenience or embarrasement?
Cant say I have discussed it outside the rail community.
If nothing else, illicit split-ticketing using advances would be inherently risky, since a missed connection at a split point would render your remaining advance ticket(s) worthless.
But rail travel is not the actual “product”. It is about getting from A to B with rail being but one option. There are also, variously, buses/coaches, cars and planes depending what the journey is.
Traveled first offpeak day return Derby-Sheffield last week (with a railcard it’s only about a fiver more than standard, but full catering including breakfast roll one way and wrap the other was offered by EMR). Train manager, checking tickets, said: “Can I see your other tickets please.” “What other tickets?” I replied. “Oh, I presumed you were splitting. Not many people buy first just for that journey.” So some staff are very familiar with splitting, and almost assume its being done on some flows.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
