My idea to simplify fares

[bb21]

Our network is far more complicated than that of those countries you have mentioned. Mileage-based pricing can work, however that will come at the cost of passenger choice and flexibility.

 

[gnolife]

I can only see mileage based pricing working if (when?) we have PAYG working reliably on all mainline trains. For it to work, there would have to be a reader on the origin and destination stations, plus on board the train - touch in at the station, touch as you board the train, touch out at destination.

 

[sheff1]

Good idea.

So the Penzance to Glasgow Central would, as one of the longest distance trains be reservation mandatory.

But obviously the Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway or perhaps the Tiverton Parkway to Taunton train wouldn't be - these are very short trips.

Oops. All of these are the same train..

Not sure what point you trying to make ?

Define a long distance train.

Define it how you wish. What about the old fashioned 'Intercity' definition ?

Our network is far more complicated than that of those countries you have mentioned. Mileage-based pricing can work, however that will come at the cost of passenger choice and flexibility.

By complicated I assume you mean choice of routes for any given journey, in which case I would argue that the GB network is not far more complicated than the Swiss one. Although my comment was aimed at the bald statement that 'mileage based pricing does not work' - I believe it does work in the countries I listed ... and others

I do not see why passenger choice/flexibilty is automatically reduced.

I can only see mileage based pricing working if (when?) we have PAYG working reliably on all mainline trains. For it to work, there would have to be a reader on the origin and destination stations, plus on board the train - touch in at the station, touch as you board the train, touch out at destination.

Distance based pricing is completely independent of any of these things.

 

[ainsworth74]

There are simplifications that could happen. I'd like to see the variety of off-peak restrictions brought down to a dozen or so, rather than over a hundred - I think that this could be done through consolidation without significant impact.

I agree. I don't think blanket Off-Peak/Peak times are a good idea. XC have introduced 0930 restriction on all their Off-Peak Returns with the effect that it's now impossible to do some journeys in one day on an Off-Peak ticket (unless you split of course, but booking engines/staff don't normally offer splits so I'm sure many customers are now overpaying). But, I do think there's room to consolidate from a list this long to something a bit more manageable.

 

[tbtc]

my comment was aimed at the bald statement that 'mileage based pricing does not work' - I believe it does work in the countries I listed ... and others

How would it work in the UK though?

It sounds fine on paper, but could never be implemented.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Not sure what point you trying to make ?....

The point of the post, I believe, is to say that some, if not all, 'long distance' trains are used for 'short distance' journeys, and possibly that, aside from the need for reservations to be checked after every stop (lets not get started on multiple ticket checks), the need for a reservation for such a short trip could prevent someone else have a longer trip on that train!

But even then you have to consider that many trains operating those short journeys would not be reservation compulsory, causing confusion amongst passengers who are unsure which trains they can use ("they all look the same to me", etc, etc).

.....Define it how you wish. What about the old fashioned 'Intercity' definition ?....

Okay, we'll use 'old fashioned Intercity' trains for the moment then. That's fine for East Coast and Virgin Trains, who only operate former Intercity services.

London Midland would not have reservation compulsory services, despite running Birmingham-Liverpool and London-Crewe services.

Chiltern trains would also not have reservation compulsory services, despite running from London to Birmingham every hour.

Scotrail, despite operating services over long distances, will have one route of compulsory reservations, the sleeper services.

South West Trains, despite operating routes like London to Exeter, will have none.

First Great Western will have their long distance HST services as reservation compulsory, which includes London to Exeter, however, Sprinter operated services, such as those between Penzance and Plymouth and also Cardiff and Weymouth, will not be, neither will the Networker Turbo services in London.

Greater Anglia will largely be a reservation free zone, however the London-Norwich service will be reservation compulsory when operated with Mk3 carriages, but not reservation compulsory on the class 360 operated services.

Transpennine Express services are largely former Regional Railways and therefore would largely escape being reservation compulsory, including their Manchester Airport-Newcastle service, however, their Manchester Airport-Glasgow/Edinburgh services would be reservation compulsory as they replaced former Intercity services.

Despite operating services that last for upto four hours, Northern Rail would be reservation free.

East Midlands trains would be compulsory reservation on routes from St Pancras, but not on any other services, such as the Liverpool-Norwich route.

Cross Country would be largely a reservation compulsory company, except the trains operating Birmingham-Stansted Airport, which would not be, and Cardiff-Nottingham, which would presumably only be compulsory reservation between Cardiff and Birmingham.

Southern Railway would not be a reservation compulsory area, except those services which used to be Gatwick Express, presumably, the London-Brighton ones would only be reservation compulsory between London and Gatwick.

Southeastern would be reservation free, even the London-Dover services, as would FCC, despite running routes over which reservation compulsory services operate.

This leaves us with Grand Central and Hull Trains that were not born from Intercity services, but run over long distances with few stops. Reservation compulsory?

....By complicated I assume you mean choice of routes for any given journey, in which case I would argue that is GB network is not far more complicated than the Swiss one......

I'm not particularly familiar with the Swiss railway system, could you possibly name one Swiss journey which has as many route options as London-Glasgow?

 

[scarby]

Surely the fares system could be simplified massively without doing away with genuine cheap offers.

Look at this:

London-Chelmsford, return:

£14.60 super off peak day return (this seems to be available after 12 noon)

£16.60 off peak day return (valid after 9.30)

£16.90 anytime day return (30p more expensive, well as if that's going to make anyone wait until 9.30 to travel)

£20.60 off-peak return - return within a month.

Now why on earth can't all these fares be merged into a flat return fare, valid for a month, of say, £17?

 

[Clip]

Now why on earth can't all these fares be merged into a flat return fare, valid for a month, of say, £17?

because there would then be even more people wanting to cram onto already busy services into London so they could have a longer day.

This is why pricing is generally split between peak & off peak

 

[yorkie]

Now why on earth can't all these fares be merged into a flat return fare, valid for a month, of say, £17?

£17 for an Anytime Return? Sounds good to me! But who's going to pay for the reduction in revenue, and additional rolling stock & infrastructure to facilitate the increase in peak loadings?

 

[sheff1]

Okay, we'll use 'old fashioned Intercity' trains for the moment then. That's fine for ..... <snip>

I think your analysis dovetails pretty well with flamingo's point about queuing at main stations which is what a mandatory reservation was suggested to counter.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Swiss railway system, could you possibly name one Swiss journey which has as many route options as London-Glasgow?

Geneve to St Gallen ? (I have not counted )

Again, the comment was designed to address the suggestion that the GB network is far more complicated ... I make no claim that there is no journey in GB which is more complicated than the most complicated journey elsewhere.

 

[maniacmartin]

I would abolish return tickets, and only issue singles. The price of a single would of course have to come down significantly, given in many cases it is currently only 10p more than a return

 

[ainsworth74]

Would that be revenue neutral or would someone have to compensate the TOCs for lost revenue and if so who?

 

[sheff1]

I would abolish return tickets, and only issue singles. The price of a single would of course have to come down significantly, given in many cases it is currently only 10p more than a return

Agreed. This is a basic principle for a distance based system but is equally valid for a 'random' system like the one we currently have.

Would that be revenue neutral or would someone have to compensate the TOCs for lost revenue and if so who?

FGW already price along these lines for 'Intercity' travel and an informed post in another thread has stated that First Group are acknowledged leaders in revenue maximisation via pricing.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Geneve to St Gallen ? (I have not counted )

Again, the comment was designed to address the suggestion that the GB network is far more complicated ... I make no claim that there is no journey in GB which is more complicated than the most complicated journey elsewhere.

Well, like I say, I don't really know the Swiss network, but I know there are thirteen Routeing Guide Map combinations for London to Glasgow and whilst some routes will be repeated, I doubt there are fewer than twenty available routes, so I think it is quite a complex network, particularly if you want mileage based fares.

 

[455driver]

If fares were a simple fixed 'pence per mile', price with no discounts, does anyboy have any idea what that price would need to be ?

So Plymouth to Exeter (52ish miles by rail) would be double the price of Guildford to Waterloo (24ish miles by rail).

Can you see a problem there?

 

[Goatboy]

Not sure what point you trying to make ?

It's obvious isn't it? By forcing reservations on these trains you force people to make a reservation to travel 10 minutes between Tiverton and Taunton, which would be a ridiculous state of affairs.

 

[sheff1]

It's obvious isn't it?

Well of course it is, that is why I asked.

No point in me explaining the reality then - it's clearly obvious :cry:.

Well, like I say, I don't really know the Swiss network, but I know there are thirteen Routeing Guide Map combinations for London to Glasgow and whilst some routes will be repeated, I doubt there are fewer than twenty available routes, so I think it is quite a complex network, particularly if you want mileage based fares.

Of course it is quite a complex network, but so is the Swiss one. As I say, distance based fares seem to work there so I can't accept a bald statement that 'mileage based pricing does not work'.

 

[Goatboy]

Well of course it is, that is why I asked.

No point in me explaining the reality then - it's clearly obvious :cry:.

So now I've explained it to you - how do you propose dealing with situations like that if every IC train had compulsory reservations?

 

[tbtc]

Surely the fares system could be simplified massively without doing away with genuine cheap offers.

Look at this:

London-Chelmsford, return:

£14.60 super off peak day return (this seems to be available after 12 noon)

£16.60 off peak day return (valid after 9.30)

£16.90 anytime day return (30p more expensive, well as if that's going to make anyone wait until 9.30 to travel)

£20.60 off-peak return - return within a month.

Now why on earth can't all these fares be merged into a flat return fare, valid for a month, of say, £17?

That would simplify things. If "simplification" is an end in itself, then that's fine.

But what about the impact of that simplification?

Is it fair to assume that everyone currently paying for cheap advanced tickets would be happy to pay for the new simple price?

Is it fair to assume that everyone currently paying for cheap advanced tickets would stay off-peak (and not move onto the peak services instead, since there's no price difference)?

Would there be sufficient capacity to deal with the increased number of people using the service at rush hour (whether they are brand new passengers or passengers who previously used the quieter/cheaper off peak tickets)?

Is it efficient to provide extra resources just to tackle rush hour demand (when trains are going to be emptier off-peak, so any increase in capacity is only going to be needed for a couple of journeys a day)?

 

[bb21]

As I say, distance based fares seem to work there so I can't accept a bald statement that 'mileage based pricing does not work'.

I can't think of a way how it would work. Mileage-based pricing has been debated numerous times previously and no one has managed to come up with a credible solution.

How about this then? You try and come up with a proposed solution, and I will retract my statement if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of half of the people on here that it will be a good compromise for the current system.

Or even simpler, just come up with some answers to these questions.

I do not see why passenger choice/flexibilty is automatically reduced.

Your proposal would instantly kill off last-minute intercity trips so that is one thing gone for a start.

Distance based pricing is completely independent of any of these things.

So how do you propose to charge a passenger who touched in at Sheffield and out at York?

 

[maniacmartin]

Perhaps the same as Oyster? Assume that you've taken a predefined default route unless you touch pink readers?

 

[sheff1]

I can't think of a way how it would work. Mileage-based pricing has been debated numerous times previously and no one has managed to come up with a credible solution.

I can only repeat, such a system works in several countries including the ones I have mentioned. In fact, it works so well in Switzerland that they have the highest train usage per head of population figures in Europe.

... Or even simpler, just come up with some answers to these questions

I answered previous iterations of those questions many moons ago. My answers were not challenged, merely ignored. When I pointed this out last year when the questions were re-raised, again no argument against my response was forthcoming it was just ignored again. I have no desire to waste my time responding for a third time.

Your proposal would instantly kill off last-minute intercity trips so that is one thing gone for a start.

Strange statement. I, and millions of Swiss, have made many last minute Intercity trips. In one of the previous debates on here I described how I had altered my routing on a whim when I spotted an inviting looking restaurant car in a train on an adjacent platform in Luzern.

So how do you propose to charge a passenger who touched in at Sheffield and out at York?

The person I responded to explained how. My point was that you do not need smartcard PAYG to operate distance based pricing.

 

[Goatboy]

So how do you propose to charge a passenger who touched in at Sheffield and out at York?

In theory I guess you could charge them the distance as the crow flies. After all, the distance as the train drives is an operational railway thing not a passenger choice thing. After all, they are buying a ticket to travel from Sheffield to York, the fact it goes via Doncaster or whatever isn't really any concern to them.*

*Obviously this is all conveniently ignoring the whole break of journey thing. Which is another reason why this sort of simplification probably doesn't work.

 

[yorkie]

You can price by mile but it will introduce different sorts of anomalies, require a lot more excess fares to be issued*, and if it's not based on market-based pricing then it would lead to huge overcrowding in some areas, and the demise of some rural services that would become unviable.

(* Unless all tickets are priced as if you went via the cheaper route but allowed you to go via the longer routes, in which case there will be more anomalies than at present)

And what about peak times? Would the peak price per mile apply if the journey starts at peak time (as at present - so you would still need to "split") or only the part that you travel before a certain time charged as peak? (the latter is fairer but how could that be calculated?)

Again if we could see figures for York-Sheffield including the local elements of the journey that would be great to see how it could work in practice

 

[sheff1]

In the examples I have given there is no concept of peak and off peak times (although someone did suggest that such distinctions were being considered for some flows in Switzerland).

To my mind the key benefit of distance based pricing it that is is never necessary* to investigate multiple options and then buy a ticket from A to C (or Z to D ) when you only want to travel A to B. If the fares are fair there is no need for anomalies *.

* to obtain a cheaper fare.

And just to be clear, mileage based pricing is quite different to a price per mile. If a 3 mile journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall is £1.50 it does not mean a 45 mile journey from Sheffield to York woud be £22.50 as the rate would taper with distance. (mileages just examples not accurate figures)

 

[soil]

So a full and standing commuter line into London would cost the same per mile as a trip through the Highlands?

 

[bb21]

I answered previous iterations of those questions many moons ago. My answers were not challenged, merely ignored. When I pointed this out last year when the questions were re-raised, again no argument against my response was forthcoming it was just ignored again. I have no desire to waste my time responding for a third time.

You mean as in here and here? I think you will find that it is challenged and not ignored.

I can only repeat, such a system works in several countries including the ones I have mentioned. In fact, it works so well in Switzerland that they have the highest train usage per head of population figures in Europe.

As Oscar already pointed out in the thread I quoted, the Swiss use a mixture of distance-based and market-based pricing, so your example is flawed in itself.

Strange statement. I, and millions of Swiss, have made many last minute Intercity trips. In one of the previous debates on here I described how I had altered my routing on a whim when I spotted an inviting looking restaurant car in a train on an adjacent platform in Luzern.

If all long-distance services are reservation compulsory, and your intended service is fully reserved, what happens next? And is this not removing passenger choices?

 

[scarby]

That would simplify things. If "simplification" is an end in itself, then that's fine.

But what about the impact of that simplification?

Is it fair to assume that everyone currently paying for cheap advanced tickets would be happy to pay for the new simple price?

Is it fair to assume that everyone currently paying for cheap advanced tickets would stay off-peak (and not move onto the peak services instead, since there's no price difference)?

Would there be sufficient capacity to deal with the increased number of people using the service at rush hour (whether they are brand new passengers or passengers who previously used the quieter/cheaper off peak tickets)?

Is it efficient to provide extra resources just to tackle rush hour demand (when trains are going to be emptier off-peak, so any increase in capacity is only going to be needed for a couple of journeys a day)?

As I said, I personally am not at all suggesting to do away with cheap tickets.

But when an off-peak day return costs £16.60 and a standard daý return costs £16.90 (and there are hundreds of such examples) it seems utterly pointless to having the two.

Someone needs to go through the fares list with a scythe and cut away all such pointless complication where fares are just a few pence different, and merge them into one fare.

 

[yorkie]

Someone needs to go through the fares list with a scythe and cut away all such pointless complication where fares are just a few pence different, and merge them into one fare.

That would result in the lower fare being merged into the higher fare (or can I say the lower fare being abolished?)

 

[scarby]

That would result in the lower fare being merged into the higher fare (or can I say the lower fare being abolished?)

Point taken - but not necessarily.

Right, here's a even more ludicrous one.

Scarborough-Seamer, return (or vice versa), a journey of 5 minutes each way.

Off peak day return (after 9.30) £2.90.

Anytime day return (exactly that) £3.10

Off-peak return (return within a month) £4.10

Anytime return (travel on day and following 4 days, return within a month) £5.10

Now just for starters, I wonder if the fourth option has ever been purchased - a quite pointless ticket option for a 5 minute journey.

Now I don't know how many people travel between Scarborough and Seamer, but from my own observations it certainly isn't that many, and certainly not enough to warrant having four ticket options, one of which is just 20p more than the other, one that is probably rarely purchased and another which is probably never purchased. An example that could readily be rationalised into one return fare.