Plans to curb 'rip off' rail fares.

[infobleep]

I just saw an image of The Times front page on Sky News and on it was the headline about plans to curb rip off rail fares. They used the term rip off.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-make-sure-passengers-get-best-deal-2s9xlk9hb

Rail companies are proposing the biggest overhaul of the fares system since privatisation two decades ago to stop millions of passengers being ripped off.

The review will address concerns that travellers are being cheated by fare structures. Only a third were sure that they had bought the best-value ticket, according to research commissioned by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), which represents train companies.

It said “long-standing” anomalies meant that about 55 million different fares were available on the national rail database at any one time....

 

[Hadders]

I've heard that RDG will be running a consultation on reforming the fares structure between June and September. No idea whether this is linked to the headline in The Times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again...will they actually do it this time? There were some sensible proposals made, then they were dropped.

 

[yorkie]

The DfT intends for fares set by train companies such as TPE and CrossCountry to increase at a higher rate than many other fares, this is done by setting aggressive demands on the franchises, ensuring that they are forced to do things like abolish Off Peak Day Return (CDR) fares and massively increase the cost of unregulated fares.

Where train companies are able to get rid of so-called "anomalies", this is usually done by increasing the more affordable fares, so that they are less affordable, so this sounds like bad news.

As for the number of fares in the database... if this is reduced, then we can be pretty sure it will be the cheaper fares being abolished (as is happening later this month on TPE!), so again, this is likely to be bad for customers.

Train companies are not able to reduce fares unless the DfT increases subsidy to compensate. This is unlikely to happen; DfT wants fares to rise rather than fall. There is no evidence of a change in Government policy, so any changes will be bad news for many customers. What we need is a promise to reduce longer distance fares across the entire National Rail network (as happened in Scotland in 2013, but that programme was short-lived and should have continued).

Any review of fares would have to be done with the DfT's approval, and the DfT want us to pay more, so we need to ensure that we are ready to fight any proposals that will inevitably result in fares increasing,. We need to be ready to fight this...

 

[Hadders]

While it's not perfect we need a form of fares regulation to remain.

Short term, here today gone tomorrow train operating companies should not be trusted to manage fares for the long term. Imagine how much an Off Peak Return from London to Manchester would be if there was no regulation.

 

[Adlington]

image of The Times front page on Sky News and on it was the headline about plans to curb rip off rail fares. They used the term rip off.

BBC uses more polite language:

The industry admits passengers are not currently always offered the cheapest fare available due to "long-standing anomalies" such as split ticketing.

That means it can be cheaper for passengers to buy several tickets for a single journey than one ticket.

Another "anomaly" it highlights is the charging of a peak-time fare when half a trip is on an off-peak service.

Long-standing anomalies are becoming locked in... as a result it has become increasingly difficult for rail companies to guarantee the right fare

 

[njamescouk]

prices going up, terms and conditions to be more onerous.

 

[Adlington]

prices going up, terms and conditions to be more onerous.

source, please....

 

[yorkie]

source, please....

Isn't that a summary of the DfT's long standing position? It also accurately summaries changes that occur to TPE fares later this month. It seems unlikely that the DfT will change course now.

 

[PeterC]

The fact that most of the posts on this board even exist shows that there is a systemic problem with rail pricing.

 

[Mark62]

There's a massive problem in this country with rail prices that date back to BR days.
In many cases a return ticket costs more than a single.
A day return from hexham to newcastle is the same fare(plus 10p) as a single. Two singles cost double a day return. Why? There's no logic to it
I booked a first class ticket from Sheffield to Newcastle this week. If I travel on the same train from Birmingham then it's around 25% cheaper than from Sheffield which is 76 miles closer to Newcastle
When it's the school holidays then advance ticket price dramatically increase on long distance journeys. This is immoral, especially when the railways are primarily funded by the taxpayer
The last time I was in Hungary they had a marvellous system. They had first class and second class singles. That was it. They have a standardised system that is very effective. No peak and off peak etc. The money they save from having our kind of system subsidises the fares and keeps them cheaper

Clearly the TOCS will never allow such a system in the UK. Why? It cuts their profits. So what.?
Our network is now costing more to the taxpayer to run than it was under BR. I didn't suppose that matters to the TOCS as long as they continue to take from the public with one hand and take again with the other
Our ticketing system is totally anomalous and totally without any logic. It's got worse since the BR days. I doubt any current government initiative will dare undermine TOC profits as its these companies are the piper and the current government must dance to their tune. Or else.
Any chances that are made will never prevent the TOCs ripping people off in the school holidays or make a single half the price of a return. The logic to so is obvious.
The political will to do so is zero.
Transport policy is social policy and as such, politics cannot be removed from any analysis of our transport networks. They do not exist in isolation from each other

 

[Adlington]

Isn't that a summary of the DfT's long standing position? It also accurately summaries changes that occur to TPE fares later this month. It seems unlikely that the DfT will change course now.

The BBC article says "The industry has pledged that average fares will not rise as a result of any reform." Of course "average fares" is not the same as "any fare". And equally of course you may mistrust industry pledges.

Anyway I expected some specific support for the generic moan: "prices going up, terms and conditions to be more onerous"

 

[Adlington]

In many cases a return ticket costs more than a single.

What's wrong with it?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

From https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...ors-reform-government-transport-a8340361.html:

Above the ticket counter at London Charing Cross station is an advertisement for Les Misérables – an appropriate choice, to judge by research from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG). A survey showed two out of three passengers walk away from the ticket window unsure if they have paid the right fare.

Anyone who buys a standard anytime ticket from Charing Cross to Ashford International is entitled to a twinge of misery when they discover that they have overpaid.

The shrewd traveller will have bought “split” tickets: one as far as Staplehurst, a leafy station in the hop country of deepest Kent where the train pauses, and another from there to the Eurostar interchange at Ashford.

This is no rare aberration: countless journeys in Britain offer savings to anyone who can be bothered to tap the details into one of the split-ticket websites.

Since rail privatisation began in 1995, UK rail fares have become progressively more complicated, with a vast array of new ticket variations but no cull of the fare types that were “baked in” when British Rail was broken up.

Innovative train operators are hamstrung by the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement of 1995, a 415-page document designed for an era before the smartphone – and the budget airlines, who have transformed public attitudes to ticketing.

The document, to which every train operator must adhere, stipulates that each of the 2,500 stations in Britain must have a fare to all of the others – an obligation akin to forcing easyJet and Ryanair to offer through-tickets to airports worldwide.

Train operators must store details of 55 million different fares, and promise to provide any customer with a small piece of printed cardboard entitling them to transportation, just as they have for almost 200 years.

Now, train operators have called for a move from the 19th to the 21st century – and for a bonfire of well-intentioned regulations that have made for a hellishly complex railroad.

The rail industry, together with the independent watchdog Transport Focus, is launching a public consultation “to establish a roadmap for change to update fares regulation and make things easier for customers”. It will run from 4 June to 10 September.

Paul Plummer, chief executive of the RDG, representing train operators and Network Rail, said: “We want to work in partnership to drive root and branch reform of well-meaning but outdated fares regulation.

“Unpicking the regulation of a £10bn-a-year fares system that underpins such a vital public service means there are no quick-and-easy solutions. The change that’s needed won’t be easy and the industry doesn’t have all the answers, which is why we want to hear views from passengers, communities and businesses in all parts of the country.”

Anthony Smith, chief executive of Transport Focus, said: “Rail passengers want a simpler, more understandable and modern fares system which matches the way we now travel.

“Opening up the debate and looking at the pros and cons of various reform options is welcome. Transport Focus will make sure the passenger voice is heard in these debates.”

I for one am deeply opposed to these suggestions. Fares regulation is the only thing saving passengers from TOCs' efforts to go on profiteering. To call it outdated is entirely wrong in the sense they have meant it (i.e. that it's no longer relevant). If anything, regulation should be improved to close the loopholes that enable TOCs to make regulated fares valid on ever decreasing numbers of trains.

Discuss...

 

[AM9]

... When it's the school holidays then advance ticket price dramatically increase on long distance journeys. This is immoral, especially when the railways are primarily funded by the taxpayer
...

Advance tickets a purely commercial offers. They are priced to fill empty seats. Strangely enough, there aren't that many empty seats during the school holidays as demand is higher, - especially on long distance journeys. If you want to go down the morality route, then address the package holiday and accommodation industry for hiked prices during the school holidays.
Oh and by the way, the railway gets less subsidy from the public purse than the contribution from fares revenue.

 

[yorkie]

The BBC article says "The industry has pledged that average fares will not rise as a result of any reform." ..

That would be disastrous.

The average fare paid takes into account astronomical fares that no-one on this forum would consider paying. A 'revenue neutral' change would, make no mistake, cause real hardship for those of us who currently purchase the more affordable rail fares in existence.

The DfT wants those of us who currently pay low fare to pay more. I find that totally unacceptable and will oppose any changes which result in increased fares.

Every so often the idea of having returns cost twice the single fare is mooted, but there is no way the DfT will sanction the best value return fares being halved to make a single fare. It just isn't going to happen.

The other thing is that they say it shouldn't be cheaper to split. We briefly had a period of promises to reduce through fares in 2013 in Scotland to match the cheaper combination. But the programme stopped before all the higher fares could be reduced. DfT is opposed to a similar scheme elsewhere as they are opposed to fares reductions. So any attempts to make it no cheaper to split are not going to result in the more expensive fares reducing.

e.g. York to Leeds is £12.10 return if you split at Church Fenton. Will DfT ask TPE to reduce the through York to Leeds single fare to £6.05? Of course not! They only just forced TPE to increase it to £15.20.

 

[yorksrob]

Rail passengers want cheaper fares above all.

Unless the reform can deliver this, don't bother.

BTW, I had no idea there was a viable split at Staplehurst !

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

They are priced to fill empty seats

I would beg to disagree - there are a number of operators who have very few spare seats on certain routes but yet sell advances readily at the lowest price, even only a few days before travel. For example, CrossCountry or West Midlands Trains. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this IMO. The important and true part is that Advances are unregulated and are entirely a commercial matter. It is therefore wrong for rail companies to defend their obscenely expensive long-distance through tickets on the basis that cheaper Advances are available - they can just as well remove these Advances at a moment's notice, or, as is currently the case for many weekends until at least December, only sell Advances so near to the date of travel that most travellers won't take the risk and simply book a flexible ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Rail passengers want cheaper fares above all.

Unless the reform can deliver this, don't bother.

BTW, I had no idea there was a viable split at Staplehurst !

I agree - sadly the DfT won't. For this reform to be effective in the way the TOCs suggest, many short-distance fares will have to be massively ramped up, as there's no chance that the long-distance through fares will fall. That way, splitting will no longer deliver much benefit on most journeys. It won't stop the 'ripoff' complained of, though, it will only make it uniform across all journeys.

 

[higthomas]

I think fare reform is welcome, given that whilst people on here might understand them well, most people really do find them very complicated.

BUT I absolutely do not trust the RDG to run this. The phrase Judge, Jury and Executioner CEA to mind...

 

[deltic]

Classic UK approach

Appoint expensive consultants (KPMG) to tell us what we already know

Undertake extensive consultation on future options with a requirement to make it revenue neutral

Consultation report comes out

Loosers are immediately up in arms at huge fare increases

Politicians bulk at upsetting vocal middle class voters

Put back into the too difficult box

Repeat every few years

 

[AM9]

I would beg to disagree - there are a number of operators who have very few spare seats on certain routes but yet sell advances readily at the lowest price, even only a few days before travel. For example, CrossCountry or West Midlands Trains. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this IMO. The important and true part is that Advances are unregulated and are entirely a commercial matter. It is therefore wrong for rail companies to defend their obscenely expensive long-distance through tickets on the basis that cheaper Advances are available - they can just as well remove these Advances at a moment's notice, or, as is currently the case for many weekends until at least December, only sell Advances so near to the date of travel that most travellers won't take the risk and simply book a flexible ticket.

I said that advances are purely commercial offers so different TOCs offer deals that suit their own business. There are already frequent complaints about those travelling on cheap advances gettin the same service as those who pay the full fare so unless making a case for their complete withdrawl, their operation has to be at the behest of the TOCs. The prices of (regulated) fares vis a vis one cheaper longer distance vs the total cost of two or more constituting the same journey under the same conditions should be scrutinised though. Similarly the rules that dance on the head of a pin regarding when peak vs off-peak tickets are appropriate needs clarifying and in many cases justifying.

I suspect that this thread will be full of suggestions from posters very closely tailored to their own travel wants.

 

[whhistle]

And the BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44032015

Said it before, and it isn't popular, but rangers and rovers should disappear.
The ones I see people buy are used from A to B, B to A only. If this reform sorts out ticketing so buying a ticket is the same as the Rover, that's great.

No wonder people feel cheated and like they don't get the cheapest fare...

 

[bb21]

Classic UK approach

Appoint expensive consultants (KPMG) to tell us what we already know

Undertake extensive consultation on future options with a requirement to make it revenue neutral

Consultation report comes out

Loosers are immediately up in arms at huge fare increases

Politicians bulk at upsetting vocal middle class voters

Put back into the too difficult box

Repeat every few years

Pretty much.

It is impossible to have a mature debate about fares system reforms because there will always be some who lose out, and a large number of these people will be residing on this forum.

The system isn't fit for purpose. A sensible and mature discussion is required on ways to drive it forward. The current system is far too complex for the average punter to understand, and very cumbersome for RDG to manage.

I agree with the concerns mentioned upthread that official regulators seemingly lack expertise in relevant fields which meant how effectively they perform their regulatory functions is fairly called into question on a regular basis. Perhaps this is an even stronger argument for reforms.

This is where I feel a golden opportunity exists for stakeholders such as this forum to make suitable comprehensive representations and a positive contribution towards the advancement of the whole system. I somehow doubt that will happen though, apart from plenty of moaning, until the day (if) a new system kicks in.

 

[whhistle]

The other alternative is just have singles for journeys.
Cut the price by about 1/3rd which means "they" can tout reducing the price.
Yes, may cost more for some people but would solve the problem of people buying more expensive open returns when they come back on an off-peak train.

Whatever happens, for some groups of people, it'll cost them more.

I'd be interested in how many people actively choose off-peak because of price and whether merging anytime and off-peak would make much of a difference.
People still need to get to work for 9am and leave around 5pm - trains will always be busy at those times. Having to pay more isn't really putting people off as I'd have thought most commuters who use the trains at these times have a season ticket anyway. If you're travelling for leisure, you'd probably be avoiding the rush hour as you have a bit more flexibility.

PlusBus tickets should also go.
Yes, it may be cheaper for customers but it also creates a higher level of confusion. Concentrate on trains.

 

[Soyyo]

According to the Guardian the "rail industry" wants a "root and branch reform of the 'outdated' regulations underpinning the fares system". It has "already cited its irritation with certain restrictions, including “inflexible seven-day, monthly or annual season tickets”, which must be offered to passengers under regulations that date back to the mid-1990s".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ares-for-season-ticket-cull-in-fares-shake-up

My interpretation of that is "let's get rid of all the controls over fares, so we can charge what we like."

The Guardian comments "The regulations underpinning rail fares have remained unchanged from the mid-1990s, when the 1995 ticketing settlement agreement spelled out how fares should be set and sold." This could have been lifted straight from the rail industry press release.

It seems also that Transport Focus will be the voice of the consumer during the review. Their chief executive says "Rail passengers want a simpler, more understandable and modern fares system which matches the way we now travel. Opening up the debate and looking at the pros and cons of various reform options is welcome. Transport Focus will make sure the passenger voice is heard in these debates.” I don't remember them being very effective at representing the passenger in anything previously, does anyone here have any views or evidence to the contrary?

To me this looks like a plan between the rail companies and the DfT to remove or cull what few protections passengers have remaining.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Can we have a Trasnport policy? Without one there only seems to be a fiscal diktat from the Treasury (which itself is largely to blame for the high subsidy it dislikes).

The Tory's have no idea what the railway is for and what it does and how it fits into wider policy objectives. There only really interested in pretending that rail privatization has been a "success" and defending the status quo. The DfT just blows in the wind obsessed with black and white internal fiscal targets.

 

[Silver Cobra]

PlusBus tickets should also go.
Yes, it may be cheaper for customers but it also creates a higher level of confusion. Concentrate on trains.

That wouldn't be very popular where I live. An Arlesey PlusBus is £2, whereas a return ticket from Shefford to Arlesey with Stagecoach is £7.40, more than triple the cost.

 

[Adlington]

The Guardian comments "The regulations underpinning rail fares have remained unchanged from the mid-1990s, when the 1995 ticketing settlement agreement spelled out how fares should be set and sold." This could have been lifted straight from the rail industry press release.

May be it does look like this, but is it factually incorrect?

 

[TheManOnThe172]

The consultation will apparently run from June to September.

What is the point of announcing the intention to publish plans and consult a month or so ahead? Why not wait until you have something substantive to present, and open the consultation at the same time, to take advantage of the news coverage an ensure a high level of engagement?

Perhaps it is just incompetence. But a cynic might suspect that this is a careful ploy to minimise participation: draw the headlines and public interest first, but don't let people see the detailed proposals or pass comment. Then, a few weeks later, when interest has died down, slip out the details and open the consultation.

Having had the subject in the headlines a month earlier, press coverage will be muted second time round. And few of those who read the headlines in May and were motivated to take part in the consultation will actually have remembered to diary themselves to go and look for the consultation at some unspecified date in June. Hey presto: fewer pesky responses to your consultation!