Plans to curb 'rip off' rail fares.

[Soyyo]

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

Not necessarily. I should have said that it is so phrased to suggest to the reader that the regulations are outdated, and therefore by inference a bad thing.

 

[Adlington]

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.

So someone is motivated in May, but forgets about the cause in June... That's not a real motivation IMHO.

 

[Nick66]

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

Exactly the phrase I picked up on on BBC Breakfast, it was even repeated and “at no cost to the taxpayer” was another one. Looks like the end of cheap Advance tickets for those who take the trouble to look for them. Sounds like they have got it in for split ticketing as well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Advance tickets a purely commercial offers. They are priced to fill empty seats.

The first part is true but the second part is not remotely true. It may have been true back in the days of Virgin Value tickets, but not any longer. West Midlands Trains price their advance fares where they do because they'd otherwise get little or no revenue from London-Birmingham tickets, for instance. It is similar with XC where most of their network is duplicated with at least one other operator. Advances are priced to maximise revenue, not to put bums on seats, as VTWC's half-full peak trains out of London show.

Oh and by the way, the railway gets less subsidy from the public purse than the contribution from fares revenue.

The Government policy is that this should continue, with the ultimate (but unachievable) aim of the railway being self-financing.

That isn't conducive to a sensible fares structure.

I'd share everyone else's belief that "simplification" will simply result in higher fares and more onerous conditions. I'd expect to see massive increases in the regulated walk-on/flexible fares using the justification of the unregulated advance fares.

Looks like the end of cheap Advance tickets for those who take the trouble to look for them.

I don't agree. I'd expect to see the increases to be put on the regulated fares (higher fares, bigger peak restrictions) using the unregulated Advance fares to argue that average fares paid haven't risen. And once everyone is on Advance fares, which are subject to no regulation and no scrutiny, the TOCs can whack the popular ones up.

Cheap advances will still exist where one TOC wants to attract custom on flows for which their ORCATS allocation is low.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

There's plenty wrong with wilfully price-dumping on overcrowded trains. They shouldn't be doing it; if they can't be trusted not to they need regulation.

There is justification for having some Advances if you don't have a Saver Half equivalent, but not low-priced ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly the phrase I picked up on on BBC Breakfast, it was even repeated and “at no cost to the taxpayer” was another one. Looks like the end of cheap Advance tickets for those who take the trouble to look for them.

Or more likely a loss of some of the utility of Off Peak walkups? It is they that cause most of the anomalies.

 

[DaveB10780]

Doesn't matter what rules are concocted, all those whose fares go down will be happy, all whose fares go up will be unhappy. Result will most likely trade one set of anomalies for another!

 

[Adlington]

Sounds like they have got it in for split ticketing as well.

Split ticketing is basically an expedient dodge, with no real justification. Enjoy it while you can....

 

[bb21]

I don't think PlusBus is in itself an issue. It is one of the few truly national schemes for promoting integrated travel and is genuinely simple to understand. A few tweaks may be needed in respect of acceptance by operators (which I think should be universal where possible, with suitable adjustment to validity area and pricing if needed). There should be more regulatory power, by the traffic commissioner if needed be, and harsher sanctions on operators whose staff incorrectly reject the product.

In the event of non-universal acceptance in a local area, publicity should be updated promptly and competently, and be the responsibility of the relevant operator, but the number of occurrences should be kept as low as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Split ticketing is basically an expedient dodge, with no real justification. Enjoy it while you can....

I don't see how they can stop it, at least at the level of splitting at a change point - you simply walk out of the station and back in, and hey presto a new journey. (Edit: Compostage is the way to prevent it without leaving the train).

Last time this came up there was talk of changing how Advances are calculated such that it was on the basis of pricing journey segments (which is how the quotas work) rather than the whole thing - it could just be that back on the agenda.

 

[Bletchleyite]

merging anytime and off-peak would make much of a difference.

I can definitely see them trying "can we get rid of Off Peak entirely in favour of Advances on the day?" - that really does need to be stopped.

But merging the prices...have you *seen* VTWC Anytime prices?

 

[Adlington]

I don't see how they can stop it, at least at the level of splitting at a change point

For example by introducing "pay by mile" fares (ok, may be with a degressive rate).

 

[Bletchleyite]

For example by introducing "pay by mile" fares (ok, may be with a degressive rate).
So the ticket from A to B via C will always be at least as expensive as the sum of tickets A-B and B-C.

They won't do that, they're too commercially minded.

 

[Soyyo]

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.

As a regular and avid reader of (if not contributor to) this forum, I would completely agree with this. There is so much knowledge and experience here which, if properly coordinated, could make a very balanced, fair and meaningful contribution.

 

[cuccir]

There's an American comedy podcast called the 'Judge John Hodgman Podcast', in which listeners bring their (usually light-hearted) disputes for judgement. A good portion of that programme's disputes involve slightly nerdy men who think that they've come up with some better way of organizing a part of their life or the world, which if everyone else followed it, would make us all happier/more efficient/etc. These schemes are almost always solving a problem which doesn't exist, or they work only if you accept a bunch of odd premises, or they sacrifice practicality/comfort for efficiency, etc

I can't help but feel that many of the ideas that we're about to hear on this thread could fall into this category of 'slightly nerdy crazy schemes'. There's not a fix-all solution that increases affordability, simplifies the system, keeps a level of demand management, and maintains TOC profits. A consultation will hopefully pull out some solutions and something does need to be done to rationalize the ticketing system, but the answer is not a simple one.

The answer depends on what solution we think we want: cheaper fares? simpler fares? demand management? support for commuters? support for leisure travel? support for poorer travellers? increases in overall patronage? more long distance travel? more short distance travel? better fares in city-regions? Some of these can be achieved together but many are going to be mutually exclusive.

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.

It would be interesting to see if there's an opportunity to provide feedback on propsoals as an organisation - it would need coordinating by the mods and possibly a temporary sub-forum.

BTW - there is already a thread on this in sub-forum(I have reported the duplication to admins); I think they could do with merging but perhaps given the high profile General Discussion might be more suitable!?

 

[yorksrob]

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...

I just can't see how this proposal would benefit anyone. If somebody would want to make a simple return journey, surely they would just be sold the point to point return anyway.

The main reason someone would buy one for a return journey would be if the return fare was more expensive, in which case the return fare is overpriced, or they wanted to come back via a different route, which is usually a product of TOC's being too restrictive in their routing options.

 

[Dai Corner]

It could be argued that 'average fares staying the same' will result in those who frequent forums like this and know their way round the system paying more and 'normal' passengers paying less. For the majority this would be fairer.

 

[Joe Paxton]

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.

This seems like a sensible and well reasoned position to take on the issue.

I think change is a coming this time, this is no false start.

 

[yorksrob]

I would propose the following modest reforms to pay on the day fares.

1) A maximum price per mile for all standard ticket types - all fares would be judged by this, and any overpriced outliers eliminated.

2) Cheap day returns available for all journeys below a (generously) defined distance.

3) Off-peak period return available on all journeys longer than a defined distance.

4) Standard period return available for all journeys longer than a defined distance.

5) A new shorter period return (4 days) for shorter distance overnight stays.

6) A national railcard available to all for a sunk cost, with the same discount on fares for everyone, but discounts for groups with particular needs on the card itself.

7) An effort to harmonise peak restrictions as far as possibly practical.

8) A return to the principle of "any reasonable route" being allowable and a bonfire of negative easements.

9) For longer distance journeys a cheaper "apex" fare which restricts people to travelling at quieter times of day or trains, but not a specific train.

These ticket types could become well known across the country and available universally.

 

[100andthirty]

yorksrob - sounds to me (no expert) like a sensible set of proposals to kick things off.

 

[bb21]

There's an American comedy podcast called the 'Judge John Hodgman Podcast', in which listeners bring their (usually light-hearted) disputes for judgement. A good portion of that programme's disputes involve slightly nerdy men who think that they've come up with some better way of organizing a part of their life or the world, which if everyone else followed it, would make us all happier/more efficient/etc. These schemes are almost always solving a problem which doesn't exist, or they work only if you accept a bunch of odd premises, or they sacrifice practicality/comfort for efficiency, etc

I can't help but feel that many of the ideas that we're about to hear on this thread could fall into this category of 'slightly nerdy crazy schemes'. There's not a fix-all solution that increases affordability, simplifies the system, keeps a level of demand management, and maintains TOC profits. A consultation will hopefully pull out some solutions and something does need to be done to rationalize the ticketing system, but the answer is not a simple one.

The answer depends on what solution we think we want: cheaper fares? simpler fares? demand management? support for commuters? support for leisure travel? support for poorer travellers? increases in overall patronage? more long distance travel? more short distance travel? better fares in city-regions? Some of these can be achieved together but many are going to be mutually exclusive.

I don't think I have agreed with a post on fares reform more in all my years here. Many a time a thread on reform descends into pointless arguments nitpicking technicalities and minority cases rather than actually looking at the bigger picture and completely forgetting about the majority of the ordinary customers.

Simply put it boils down to the fact that the system cannot please everyone without a massive increase in subsidy, which is not going to happen. While it is important to ensure that the number disadvantaged by changes are minimised and effects suitably mitigated against, there is no magic wand. Some people will lose out, and it can't be denied that many in that category will likely be those who currently utilise what may be called "loophole" or "good value" fares. Just because not everyone can be pleased is not excuse to do nothing at all and allow the ridiculous situation to continue indefinitely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

yorksrob - sounds to me (no expert) like a sensible set of proposals to kick things off.

Return fares cause the complexity of route and time excesses to need to exist. Excesses are an utter nuisance.

I'd be more inclined to look at:-
- Fares to be priced as singles with all singles over 50 miles having two days validity (until 0429 on day 3) and allowing unlimited BoJ in that time.
- Possible option on the above: if buying two singles the same in opposite directions the second one gets the regular month of validity.
- The above change to be revenue neutral, which will mean a small increase in return journey fares at the "expense" of single journey fares being more reasonable.
- Possibly retain some form of further discounted "CDR" issued as a single piece for unlimited journeys over a route on a specific day
- All excesses abolished, replaced by refunds on walk-up tickets being free of charge if another ticket is purchased at the same time. Refunds even possible in this case if a ticket is part used but only where traded in for a ticket that has validity for the journey completed so far.

- Advances priced based on journey segments (where the quotas sit) rather than overall through fares (as I believe is actually proposed) removing all anomalies involving Advances. Where a segment has no Advance price that segment based on the relevant walk up fare but keep it train specific to avoid confusion. This would allow Advances to be available for all journeys, only suppressed where the walk-up would be the same price or less.

- Peak time restrictions for walk-up fares to be in 2 levels and based on arrival (morning)/departure (evening) of the train being used (regardless of whether you actually go there or originate there) at a nationally specified set of key nodes on the network (basically all the big cities and major interchanges). Where more than one applies, only one of them to be actually applied in a similar way to the "NSE rule" applied to London. (Note: it's impossible to do peak walk up restrictions without creating some kind of anomaly - I just think this is the "least worst" option). For small branch lines only have Anytimes for internal journeys as many of them already do.

- Name the three levels Anytime, Saver and SuperSaver, and rename Advances to "Value", "APEX" or something of a similarly strong brand. The present names despite being allegedly simple do confuse people, especially where a ticket bought in advance is not an Advance.

 

[radamfi]

Of course it is natural to assume the worst regarding any shake-up in fares. Certainly, it was always assumed until about 10-20 years ago that the government were not interested in getting more people using trains. But can we still say that now? If we assume that the government would actually prefer it if more people used trains, then presumably they would not want a new fare system that prices people off trains more than they already do today.

How much money would be lost by getting rid of returns? There are some people who are currently put off train travel because of the high single prices, especially those who do triangular trips and base their travel decisions on the price of three singles, and don't know about workarounds. The train companies also probably lose money from people using month returns more than once.

 

[yorksrob]

yorksrob - sounds to me (no expert) like a sensible set of proposals to kick things off.

Many thanks

 

[yorksrob]

Return fares cause the complexity of route and time excesses to need to exist. Excesses are an utter nuisance.

I'd be more inclined to look at:-
- Fares to be priced as singles with all singles over 50 miles having two days validity (until 0429 on day 3) and allowing unlimited BoJ in that time.
- Possible option on the above: if buying two singles the same in opposite directions the second one gets the regular month of validity.
- The above change to be revenue neutral, which will mean a small increase in return journey fares at the "expense" of single journey fares being more reasonable.
- Possibly retain some form of further discounted "CDR" issued as a single piece for unlimited journeys over a route on a specific day
- All excesses abolished, replaced by refunds on walk-up tickets being free of charge if another ticket is purchased at the same time. Refunds even possible in this case if a ticket is part used but only where traded in for a ticket that has validity for the journey completed so far.

- Advances priced based on journey segments (where the quotas sit) rather than overall through fares (as I believe is actually proposed) removing all anomalies involving Advances. Where a segment has no Advance price that segment based on the relevant walk up fare but keep it train specific to avoid confusion. This would allow Advances to be available for all journeys, only suppressed where the walk-up would be the same price or less.

- Peak time restrictions for walk-up fares to be in 2 levels and based on arrival (morning)/departure (evening) of the train being used (regardless of whether you actually go there or originate there) at a nationally specified set of key nodes on the network (basically all the big cities and major interchanges). Where more than one applies, only one of them to be actually applied in a similar way to the "NSE rule" applied to London. (Note: it's impossible to do peak walk up restrictions without creating some kind of anomaly - I just think this is the "least worst" option). For small branch lines only have Anytimes for internal journeys as many of them already do.

- Name the three levels Anytime, Saver and SuperSaver, and rename Advances to "Value", "APEX" or something of a similarly strong brand. The present names despite being allegedly simple do confuse people, especially where a ticket bought in advance is not an Advance.

I don't think returns in themselves are necessarily the problem. I think the lack of consistency in what types of return are available, and the tendency for TOC's to be overly precious about routings are what cause the problems.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I don’t see what the big war is on Advance Tickets. You can get them easily even a few days in advance at a reasonable rate, all you ever hear about is the On the Day price which your always going to pay a premium for its to stagger demand and encourage advance booking. Advance ticketing is everywhere you wouldn’t just turn up for a plane on the day, National Express sell coach tickets in advance, Eurostar etc etc. I agree some of the On day prices are excessive and should perhaps be brought down but not at the expense of advance tickets. I also think like a lot of bus operators they should offer a discount for etickets and mobile ticketing instead of focusing on smart cards if they really are serious about smart ticketing

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think returns in themselves are necessarily the problem.

I think they are *a* problem. I see no reason why things like 3-point journeys should be overpriced in the way they are. Single fare pricing is much fairer. We have it for Advances, why not for walk-ups?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t see what the big war is on Advance Tickets.

I have no problem with them *unless* they are sold at price-dumped levels on overcrowded trains (yes, you, WMT), and provided they are not used as an excuse to get rid of walk-up fares at reasonable prices (coach walk-up fares are not expensive, and trains aren't planes - planes mostly do not compete with the ultimate flexibility of a car). I think this may actually require some regulation to prevent TOCs doing it.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I don’t see what the big war is on Advance Tickets. You can get them easily even a few days in advance at a reasonable rate, all you ever hear about is the On the Day price which your always going to pay a premium for its to stagger demand and encourage advance booking.

I don't have a problem with buying tickets in advance of travel. What I may have a problem with is a ticket type "Advance" which restricts me to a particular train. How much of a premium should be charged for a wider choice of trains?

At the risk of adding yet more ticket types, why isn't there a ticket type which gives a choice of perhaps three trains? So you buy a ticket for the 18:00 train, but it's also valid on the two after that on the same route.

 

[Typhoon]

Looking at the BBC coverage, quoted earlier (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44032015), as an example of an anomaly they compare the cost of a journey from Oxford to Cambridge - direct with an off peak single ticket against a split-ticket route including £5.40 for Oxford to Paddington* (valid on this journey only); miss it and you will fork out £26.50 for a later journey. Of course, if you are willing to specify, in advance, the train you are travelling on, you should be able to pay less - this is not an anomaly!

Another anomaly identified is the charging of peak-time fares when half of the trip is off-peak. If the suggestion is that there is a new '50-50 peak/off-peak' ticket, that will only add to the 55 million fares. If they are going to do away with off-peak, I will travel earlier (during the peak), get more time at my destination but will get a seat because I live near the start of the line. My 'reward' for travelling later is a cheaper fare.

Apparently a reformed ticketing system could include integrated tickets - Plusbusandtram, possibly? And more flexible tickets for part time workers - is that not possible at the moment? Would anyone really object? Why do we need a consultation?

This just seems like a load of spin. Commuters are moaning because of the 3.4% fares hike in January (and, in some cases, rubbish service) so can't be milked anymore and giving MPs grief; DfT under pressure to make savings; some TOCs making (what they regard as) low profits. More money needs to be made from fares, so either more passengers or passengers pay more (and here, it cannot be commuters).

* - to make the same journey in the following week would cost £26.50. If you set an unregulated fare for a particular journey to a fraction of the standard price on particular days, people will take advantage of them. I would anticipate that those who do, will largely just end up in London. Nothing to do with split ticketing.