New railcard

[nedchester]

I had two yesterday -
"This is a family and friends railcard, where is the child?"
"We're friends, that counts"
"Wrong" - ching ching!

The passenger does have a point though. It was called the Family railcard and now the Family & Friends so there you go (OK I know the conditions say you need a child in the group)

 

[MikeWh]

The change to include Friends in the name was to clarify that the group did not need to be related to each other to travel, they just need to travel together. Thus it's fine to take Johnny and 3 friends to London for his birthday, or Dad takes a couple of workmates and his son to football.

 

[Flamingo]

The passenger does have a point though. It was called the Family railcard and now the Family & Friends so there you go (OK I know the conditions say you need a child in the group)

They were chancing their arm - their whole body language screamed "Guilty".

 

[bnm]

I had two yesterday -
"This is a family and friends railcard, where is the child?"
"We're friends, that counts"
"Wrong" - ching ching!

Railcard Bingo.....

....and here's your caller for this evening.... Flamingo.

Eyes down, look in, and any bingo cards marked 'Didcot' are invalid

 

[Flamingo]

Railcard Bingo.....

....and here's your caller for this evening.... Flamingo.

Eyes down, look in, and any bingo cards marked 'Didcot' are invalid

I like it!

Even though I was bloody sure they were chancing it, they didn't argue (too much), so I only excessed them.

 

[southerner2174]

They should know that they need a child with them to validate the discount.... after all im sure they read up on the terms and conditions when applying for the discount card, just like lots of passengers, tried to chance their arm and got caught, they must have been lucky you were in a good frame of mind

 

[bnm]

after all im sure they read up on the terms and conditions when applying for the discount card

Folks reading up on the T&Cs, now there's a thing!

 

[Lampshade]

What happens if they buy a child ticket but there's no child? As technically they've paid the right amount to be entitled to the discount (i.e. + a child), there just doesn't happen to be one there

 

[jon0844]

What happens if they buy a child ticket but there's no child? As technically they've paid the right amount to be entitled to the discount (i.e. + a child), there just doesn't happen to be one there

While it breaches the T&Cs, it would be hard for a TOC to prove any actual loss or attempt to defraud if taken to court.

 

[cuccir]

I'm presuming that ATOC must have done some market research here. My guess is its told that them that
* for solo travellers doing day trips the train is usually cheaper than the car, particularly for off peak
* for groups, the car is usually much cheaper AND that it would take a large discount to bring rail prices down to the same level
* for groups of 2 the rail/car(/air) price difference is quite close. As such, a railcard discount can place the train as the cheapest option, without hitting revenue too highly, and thus encouraging a lot more off peak journeys.

That, I presume, is the thinking behind this railcard and for that reason I can see a logic to it. That said, perhaps a more expensive option with one named traveller plus any companion would go down well...

 

[jon0844]

There's nothing wrong with this railcard (even if it will be a nightmare for staff to enforce), but it's such a shame they can't do a single-person one, which would require little more than making the current Network Railcard mean the WHOLE UK network. ATOC wouldn't even need to change the name!

However, if they wanted to keep a legacy card for the former NSE area (for those people who may not want a UK-wide card) then they could launch the new one as a 'National Railcard' - but I'd suggest the name 'Network' suits a nationwide network anyway, so they should introduce a new name for what is the current 'restricted' area. How many people today realise the Network Railcard refers to what was once Network SouthEast?

In my opinion, they'd have to do two cards because

a) It would be unfair to suddenly increase the cost if some people are quite happy with what they have
b) They couldn't go nationwide for the current cost - I'd be expecting to pay £50-100 at least. For long trips, it would still potentially pay for itself in just one or two journeys.

 

[island]

And at the risk of getting the crayons out, they could make it so that it could not be issued on the spot, to diminish the chance of it being used opportunistically.

 

[JB1601]

So the Railcard is basically being restricted to couples or very close friends who travel around a lot together? That's a very small market!

Why so, and how would you know? I'd guess it's a broader market than the F&F railcard as you wouldn't have to drag a sprog around with you to get the discount. I wouldn't relate everything to just your own experience. One day you may get a Mrs ALR (or Mr, whatever floats your boat) and be thankful for it

 

[Flamingo]

What happens if they buy a child ticket but there's no child? As technically they've paid the right amount to be entitled to the discount (i.e. + a child), there just doesn't happen to be one there

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but on my train, they get charged more money.

I had this a few weeks ago, one of the two adults (stroppy female teen):
- "You don't care that my brother is home sick in bed"
- "Obviously you don't either, or you wouldn't be off to London for the weekend"

 

[All Line Rover]

I had this a few weeks ago, one of the two adults (stroppy female teen):
- "You don't care that my brother is home sick in bed"
- "Obviously you don't either, or you wouldn't be off to London for the weekend"

Just imagine if Flamingo did work experience!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

What happens if they buy a child ticket but there's no child? As technically they've paid the right amount to be entitled to the discount (i.e. + a child), there just doesn't happen to be one there

In some cases the cost of paying for an adult and child is less than the cost of the adults alone, which means the TOCs do actually make a loss. Hence the condition that a paying child is part of the travelling group.

e.g. Manchester-London

1ad SOR £279 (Peak time fare)
1ad SVR £70 (Off-Peak only)
F&F SVR 1ad + 1ch £59.50 (at any time on VT)

 

[lemonic]

The cost of paying for an adult and a child with a Family & Friends Railcard is always less than just an adult on their own, I would have thought.
Adult ticket 100% of the cost of an adult ticket
Adult FAM 66% of the cost of an adult ticket
Child CHFAM 20% of the cost of an adult ticket
So an adult and child with Family Railcard pay 86% of the cost of an adult ticket.

(NB: I suppose there may be the odd special offer where this isn't always true, but for all standard tickets this applies, subject to rounding)

 

[Mojo]

London Underground will accept a Group Day Ticket for less than the group size provided the person or persons travelling are in possession of all of the tickets.

 

[jon0844]

London Underground will accept a Group Day Ticket for less than the group size provided the person or persons travelling are in possession of all of the tickets.

Seems a fair way to deal with things. Presumably that would ensure the person who left the group either didn't travel at all (as is quite feasible), or had to buy a separate ticket to travel separately. Either way, no loss to the railway/TfL.

I do wish the common sense applied on the Underground was common throughout the national railway!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The cost of paying for an adult and a child with a Family & Friends Railcard is always less than just an adult on their own, I would have thought....

There is a minimum fare of £1 on the child ticket, so quite a few adult + child fares are not cheaper than the adult fare. I should perhaps have said most rather than some.

 

[lemonic]

There is a minimum fare of £1 on the child ticket, so quite a few adult + child fares are not cheaper than the adult fare. I should perhaps have said most rather than some.

OK, I thought there might be exceptions, but I forgot that one. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[FGWman]

Seems a fair way to deal with things. Presumably that would ensure the person who left the group either didn't travel at all (as is quite feasible), or had to buy a separate ticket to travel separately. Either way, no loss to the railway/TfL.

I do wish the common sense applied on the Underground was common throughout the national railway!

Yes but in the family railcard case there is loss to the railway. The price of two adult travelling together will be more than the price of two adult and one child with the F & F railcard so clearly the railway has lost money.

 

[LexyBoy]

I do wish the common sense applied on the Underground was common throughout the national railway!

It is though, it's just not official policy in many cases.

The result is that people are evasive as they're anticipating a massive penalty fare for a slight change of journey plans - whether this is the policy but shouldn't be (e.g. 3 on a GPS-4, or on EC with an XC only ticket, forgotten railcard), or where the correct procedure is actually perfectly reasonable and would result in a small or no charge (e.g. Off Peak on a barred train, breaking journey at an intermediate station, travelling on a different train to that booked [with a non-AP ticket]).

Yes - I realise that there are plenty of fare dodgers out there, but IMO the "correct" procedures are somewhat schizophrenic and result in genuine customers sometimes behaving like dodgers because they have no idea whether the answer to "is my ticket OK on this train?" will be "yes, that's fine", "you'll need to pay the difference, which is £3.25", or "that'll be a £179 fine". Use of discretion helps to temper this, but I think what is needed is an overhaul of ticketing T&Cs to be fairer and clearer to the customer, and publicity on the procedures in most cases. Of course, this won't happen as ATOC want to get rid of antiquated procedures like excesses and the concept of "permitted routes". (OT rant over).

 

[exile]

In some cases the cost of paying for an adult and child is less than the cost of the adults alone, which means the TOCs do actually make a loss. Hence the condition that a paying child is part of the travelling group.

The TOC only makes a loss if the family would have travelled in any case, even with no discount. Given that the marginal cost of carrying an extra passenger on off-peak services is effectively nil, the fare paid is all profit if the trip would not have been made without the discount.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

On that basis the first passenger pays all the costs of the service, no wonder fares are so high.

 

[Flamingo]

The TOC only makes a loss if the family would have travelled in any case, even with no discount. Given that the marginal cost of carrying an extra passenger on off-peak services is effectively nil, the fare paid is all profit if the trip would not have been made without the discount.

Sorry, I don't buy into your argument at all, mate.
1. All fares are reckoned as discounted off the full anytime single, which is why this is the starting point for ticket "irregularities" outside of PF areas.
2. Off-peak trains have the exact same running costs as peak time trains. They usually have to be run with significant spare capacity to fulfill franchise agreements, and because it is not economic to chop carriages off and on to services in the middle of the day. To say that the extra cost is NIL is patently not true. And on a lot of the weekend (off-peak) trains, there can be significant overcrowding.
3. The "the journey would not have been made" argument I can never follow (when it's put to me on-train I'm quite impatient with it as well). The cost of any journey is one factor in deciding what means of transport to use. If petrol was £1 a gallon, how many people would use trains? Equally, if all train tickets were a flat £1, how many people would use the train? (and I bet there would STILL be fare-dodgers, but that's a subject for a different thread)

When people make the decision to travel by train, they have to pay the fare laid down for the journey. If they don't want to pay that fare then decide on another means of transport, or stay at home (which is the greenest option of all, before some tree-hugger starts with save the planet waffle).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

They had several leaflets on the new railcard at Lichfield TV yesterday. I picked up about 30 for some reason

 

[IanXC]

2. Off-peak trains have the exact same running costs as peak time trains. They usually have to be run with significant spare capacity to fulfill franchise agreements, and because it is not economic to chop carriages off and on to services in the middle of the day. To say that the extra cost is NIL is patently not true. And on a lot of the weekend (off-peak) trains, there can be significant overcrowding.

Without having exact numbers to hand I can see that there is a very strong, and universally accepted by economists, argument that the marginal cost of an extra off peak passenger is effectively nil. This is precisely because off-peak trains have the exact same running costs as peak time trains.

For example:

Lets say the route from Vicarstown to Tidmouth operates using 4 car trains with a capacity of 360. This stock has been selected because the demand at peak hours is around 300-340 per service.

At off peak hours the service has to be operated with the same stock as no other is available, however demand is around 100-120 per service.

The Marginal Cost of carrying 1 extra passenger on an off peak service is effectively zero, as unless the particular passenger generates extra work for staff on the service then the cost to the TOC of carrying that passenger is zero.

This means that (excluding the 100-120 people who usually use the service) a TOC could charge £1, and this would be pure profit, as costs have not increased. Assumption: 1 Guard is required who can check 360 tickets during the journey.

The problem in the case of Railcards is how do TOCs ensure that the passengers who travel on these off peak trains anyway do not result in the overall revenue declining. For example if you assume that 50% of the 100-120 passengers are travelling in pairs, and therefore make use of the new railcard, then Total Revenue would decline by 16.5%, so this new railcard (in this example) only results in an increase in revenue when overall passenger numbers increase by more than 16.5%.

So yes the marginal cost to the TOC of 1 extra off peak passenger is effectively zero. A revenue model has to be developed to support a pricing strategy such as a railcard, and the lack of a positive case for a National Railcard is the only reason I can see for it not being introduced.

 

[jon0844]

One fear is that a commuter will travel later to benefit from the far cheaper fare with both off-peak AND a railcard, but is that a bad thing? We should be encouraging flexible working hours, which will reduce strain on both public transport and our road network.

And if there's a bit more perceived room on the peak trains as a result, they'll soon be filled with other people now more inclined to travel by train - so I very much doubt any TOC has much to worry about if they look at the bigger picture.

Does anyone think we will really get to a point where peak trains run half empty? That's far more likely to happen with fares going through the roof - increasing by £300-500 a year for the average person on the outskirts of London - than from them travelling at different times with a railcard that potentially gets them 25, 50 or even 100% off as with a scheme like that in Germany (for example).

 

[Flamingo]

It might reach that point, these things are kept under review I'm sure, and I know that certain trains have been re-classified from off-peak to peak as they were getting seriously crowded. I'm sure that the reverse could happen as well.