Plans to curb 'rip off' rail fares.

[Typhoon]

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.

Precisely. And have a big notice at every station with the types of return available and their limitations written in clear English (not TOCtalk).

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

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...

Fares need to go down rather than up. Now that the growth in passenger numbers has stalled maybe the DfT/industry will realise prices need to be lower to attract new users. In the meantime, if only a third of passengers are confident they are getting the best price, Nationalrail.co.uk and TOC sites need to have a link to Trainsplit and advise customers to check for splits before booking

 

[radamfi]

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.

National Express are also still in the "dark ages" when it comes to return tickets, unless the main competition on the route is Megabus, which has single-based pricing. Before Megabus came along, they used to be just like the trains with the cheapest returns being only slightly more than a single. It is not so bad these days, but they still say that a return is often cheaper than two singles. If the trains abolish returns then maybe that will make National Express do the same, as some of their singles may no longer look cheap compared to the train.

 

[Starmill]

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 !

For obvious reasons it removes your flexibility to go via Bearsted. But otherwise its not bad and if you search on trainsplit you'll find it.

 

[infobleep]

BBC uses more polite language:

Deleted comment as I see the BBC did give dates and times.

 

[Starmill]

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.

It's interesting that you're so concerned about this, but apparently not about the actual causes of it.

The cause is that the trains with the empty seats, which are the ICWC ones that many of those people should be on, are too expensive. If they sold all of their seats on peak trains then that might reduce the overcrowding on what are currently the only trains available at a sensible price.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I sat next to the TVM's at Marylebone yesterday morning for about 15 minutes. Very instructive watching folk first of all navigating using them and then deciding on what fare they wanted. Most seemed to go for CDR's to Oxford (eventually) but you could see them having to think through and hesitate over the other options before deciding. Progress was painfully slow at times and walk on's to Oxford from London are hardly the most complex either. Still they had the choice of CDS, CDR, SVR, SDS & SDR to hurdle. I'm sure one person opted for the SVR that didn't need it she only had a small handbag.

Plus all the time wasted faffing about on the internet looking for "cheap fares" there must be an opportunity cost to the wider economy of our fare system!

 

[infobleep]

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.

Would they listen to any experts on here or will they just go with what they want? Perhaps I'm being to cynical here.

 

[The Ham]

The problem with any change is that unless the government is willing to take a cut in premium payments and pay more in subsidies then there's so many problems that it will likely result in passengers stopping using rail services (which would result in the same result).

For instance if you are going to Guildford in the peak it's often cheaper to get a ticket to the next station (which requires a change at Guildford) than it is to get a ticket to Guildford.

If you close that loophole those going to those stations could have to pay up to 25% more than at present and so will just stop using the train, that or give those going to Guildford an upto 25% discount.

Likewise if you travel between Farnborough and Guildford using an any permitted ticket you can go via Woking or direct, although a via Woking ticket is more expensive during the peak but is cheaper off peak. What is the answer to that? As if you put up the any permitted ticket cost then it would be cheaper to buy a ticket from Blackwater, which then means that people would use that loophole (i.e. You close one loophole by creating another).

 

[tbtc]

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.

Which is it?

The Tories hate the railway or the Tories are spending billions of pounds subsidising the railway?

Because if they really are as "nasty" as some on here want to portray them then they'd have cut down on all subsidies a long time ago.

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 think that yours is the most interesting comment on this thread.

I also think that some quirks are going to be unavoidable in the ticketing system. If we accept that GMPTE/TfGM are allowed to subsidise tickets within the Greater Manchester boundary that they are responsible for then we have to accept that sometimes it'll be cheaper to split a ticket from Manchester Airport to a station just beyond the boundary at the last station within GM (e.g. Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale). Same goes for London/ Glasgow etc.

Similarly, if we accept that there need to be "peak" and "off peak" tickets then there will always be examples where it's cheaper to only pay for a short journey within the "peak" period and buy a second ticket from the first station at which there's no "peak" supplement. So whilst it's easy to complain about the need for split tickets, if you want to permit PTE subsidies and peak/off-peak tickets then there will always be times where splitting is cheaper.

The headline on the radio this morning was that there are currently "over a million" fares, which sounds a lot, but if you assume that there's 2,500 stations then that's over six million combinations - add in the need for adult/child fares, the need for first/standard tickets, the need for single/day return/ period return, the need for peak/off-peak... it's unavoidable.

Maybe some routes should be more consistent, in terms of whether there's a "day" and "period" return, but there's certainly an argument for inconsistencies - different routes have different definitions of rush hour for good reason - trying to standardise rush hour (e.g. 16:30-18:30) would mean some routes would be horribly busy at 18:31 and other areas where rush hour is more marginal would see fares hiked.

Face it, there will always be some routes where driving is significantly cheaper, I'm not convinced that this latest plan will be a Great Leap Forward, but then I'm similarly unconvinced by the various threads on here along the lines of "My Idea For A Perfect Fare System".

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

There's a reason that the phrase "sunk cost fallacy" exists.

For example, a lot of tourist attractions I've been to in recent years sell an annual pass for the price of a day ticket (the Deep in Hull, the Space Centre in Leicester...). That means that it's free for me to go there again and again, but (even though I'd paid my money up front, permitting me to go weekly if I so choose) that doesn't mean I've felt the need to do so. Paying up front for an annual rail discount won't make people use the train more, unless the train is good value (regardless of the sunk cost).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which is it?

The Tories hate the railway or the Tories are spending billions of pounds subsidising the railway?

Because if they really are as "nasty" as some on here want to portray them then they'd have cut down on all subsidies a long time ago.

If they cut subsidies too far, companies wouldn't bid for franchises, and then where would the Great Privatisation Debacle Project be?

That said, I think the truth is that the Tories now accept they need to financially support the railway- the Home Counties would grind to a halt without the railway- but want to pass as much of the burden as they can on to fare-paying passengers. I think it's a regrettable policy decision. I think that policy decision will influence whatever "simplifications" are proposed.

There's a reason that the phrase "sunk cost fallacy" exists.

Indeed. I do have a Two Together Railcard but still don't use the railway just because I have a railcard if driving would be cheaper or more convenient. The railcard discount makes it more likely that driving won't be significantly cheaper, though.

 

[Gareth Marston]

2,529.00

Which is it?

The Tories hate the railway or the Tories are spending billions of pounds subsidising the railway?

Because if they really are as "nasty" as some on here want to portray them then they'd have cut down on all subsidies a long time ago.

Our friends in blue have a coherant national transport policy - rather than reacting to events or playing pork barrel politics then?

True they continue to pump £ billions into the privatized rail industry but if they didn't there wouldn't be a privatized rail industry as the finances would soon collapse...its catch 22 for them. They don't like public subsidy but the rail industry's structure means that public money supports private business.... Its akin to a distress purchase for them they cant seem to shake and a legacy of a previous policy failure they don't want to admit to.

 

[Starmill]

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.

I personally gain from my deeper understanding of the current system, and I'd be happy to pay a little bit more than currently IF it meant a large increase in the number of people travelling by train, as a result of the simplification. Also I might be willing to pay a but more money through my fares of they were apportioned more to spending on cost effective enhancements to infrastructure and running more trains, and less to staff costs, leasing company profits, the cost of finance, wasteful administration practices and direct profit at operators.

Within the current system all of the above, sadly, are deeply unlikely.

 

[AM9]

... 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). ...

Highlighted, what do you mean by that? Surely it can be from any paying group?

 

[infobleep]

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

I once would love to have bought an advance from Guidford to Hastings but no such advance existed.

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.

An example of a Plusbus anomaly. Plusbus add on to Oxford is cheaper than 24 hour saver ticket. But it's only valid on that calendar day. So should you wish to use the buses the next day,, a saver 24 hour ticket is cheaper than Plusbus. There is no saver day tickets in Oxford, just a 24 hour one.

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.

As long as it's based on revenued earned rather than average ticket price. I've seen spin from TOCs and RDG in the past so I struggle at times to trust them.

For example South Western Railway put out a press release on Driver Only Operted trains. It was written in such away as to make you think nothing is changing, if you didn't read it closely enough.

So whose to say they wouldn't try something similar with the fares. Look the average fare has now changed.

However it's just that the tickets they aren't sold much have gone so so although the average fare is the same, the moment they make has gone up.

Maybe that would be good to fund the railways hut id want it transparent and not unhand or spun as one thing when it's actually another.

Perhaps as part of the reforms, the TOCs could accept to be subject to FOIs.

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

As I stated above, I once would have loved to buy an advance from Guidford to Hastings but couldn't. One still can't.

Oh for a nationwide carnet ticket system!

It is the lack of a discount when travelling regularly but not every day, that encouraged me to investigate split ticketing and the routing guide further. Had a carnet ticket existed I wouldn't have done this.

 

[cuccir]

I think that yours is the most interesting comment on this thread.

Well one in 2000-odd posts has to be at least OK. Your examples about PTE and peak/off-peak are spot on. For me the key point is that any set of changes needs to have a coherent goal. Simplification is a laudable aim, but I don't think we can pretend that we can simplify without having consequences elsewhere.

To that end, of the suggestions that have been made, Yorksrob at least has had the merit of presenting a coherent programme of changes, rather than attempting to solve ticketing problems through one single solution. I think his suggestions would (1) make it harder to encourage people to travel in very off-peak periods and (2) probably reduce ticket revenues unless the improvements encouraged significant extra travel. So there'd be possible efficiency, capacity, income and crowding implications BUT they are steps towards simplification and if we want that then perhaps we have to accept that we'd lose some of the demand management benefits of a more complex system.

 

[AlterEgo]

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!

Because the most valuable and longest responses to consultations are usually written by experts in the relevant field. These can be dozens of pages long and involve significant consultation within the respondent’s organisation.

It’s quite normal for a consultation to be announced in this way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because if they really are as "nasty" as some on here want to portray them then they'd have cut down on all subsidies a long time ago.

Arguably the Tories are doing exactly what you would expect - subsidising the railways, which are used by middle class and rich people, and withdrawing bus subsidy, which are used by poor people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's interesting that you're so concerned about this, but apparently not about the actual causes of it.

The cause is that the trains with the empty seats, which are the ICWC ones that many of those people should be on, are too expensive. If they sold all of their seats on peak trains then that might reduce the overcrowding on what are currently the only trains available at a sensible price.

VTWC Anytimes are certainly outrageously overpriced, but overcrowding on the Trent Valley is happening at all times of day, including at times when VTWC are offering quite reasonably priced Advances. The problem at those times is that WMT are offering price-dumped Advances for as little as a fiver on trains that need no more passengers.

Once those trains go 8-car, and if they could additionally manage a second train per hour, by all means restart the practice, but for now there should be no Advances on the Trent Valley route at all in my book (or at least none priced below half the relevant walk-up fare to avoid disadvantaging those making single journeys). By all means price-dump them on one-change journeys via Birmingham where there is a lot more spare capacity, of course, to encourage people to go that way (but similarly, if doing that, get in enough more 319s to allow all Birmingham trains north of Northampton to be 8-car all day).

 

[FenMan]

Clever statisticians employed by the Government will have been modelling how changes in working patterns such as the growth of the gig economy and increased telecommuting will impact various sectors. We also know that that sales of season tickets by London commuters are showing signs of having peaked. There may be a connection.

If so, the DfT and HM Treasury will be hugely concerned. Government policy relies on continuing robust growth in fare box revenue, much of which is contributed by SE commuters, so it should not be a surprise that fares reform, long on the back burner while fares revenue was increasing very nicely thank you, is rapidly moving up the agenda (dressed up for public consumption as "removing anomalies").

But, technological innovations that will permit new and flexible ways of pricing rail journeys have been painfully slow to bear fruit. It is becoming an imperative to compel/drag the industry into the 21st century without further delay. Leaving it to TOCs to micromanage the optimisation of revenue generation through offering an ever-increasing thicket of ticket types with ever more restrictions is no longer tenable. The logical conclusion is that, against this Government's instincts, reform will require the fast and effective introduction of an industry-wide common ticketing, pricing and routeing technology framework with a corresponding loss of flexibility for TOCs to introduce their own "interesting" local variants. Some (or many?) passengers will pay more for the same journeys they make today, but there will also be new ticketing and fare offerings aimed at audiences that are poorly served or, worse, ignored by the current set-up.

Change needs to happen - I agree that railforums.co.uk as an entity/group should seriously consider exploring how to best engage with RDG in this process. Time is short.

 

[Starmill]

but overcrowding on the Trent Valley is happening at all times of day, including at times when VTWC are offering quite reasonably priced Advances.

I don't think this is at all true.

Looking tomorrow afternoon at London to Stoke-on-Trent, cheapest single ticket:
1446 £30 LM
1500 £70.60 VT
1520 £120 VT
1546 £30 LM
1600 £141 VT
1620 £141 VT
1633 £125 VT & XC
1646 £34 LM
1700 £141 VT
1720 £141 VT
1733 £132 VT & XC
1746 £34 LM
1800 £141 VT
1820 £100 VT
1833 £125 VT & XC
1849 £22.50 LM
1900 £70.60 VT
1920 £70.60 VT
1946 £22.50 LM
2000 £55 VT

And people are surprised at the overcrowding. In many cases Virgin Trains are asking for four times the price, or even more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think tomorrow is a bit near to time to do that comparison, no?

It also disregards SVRs and the likes- most people aren't making single journeys and they are classically overpriced.

 

[Starmill]

I don't see why tomorrow is too close to the time to look at the fares? As Alex Hynes once told me, a similar number of Advances are sold the day before travel as during the whole period prior to that when they go on sale. But if you do it one month from nowl on 6th Jun, the ratio between the prices is not very different:

1446 £22.50 LM
1500 £65 VT
1520 £67 VT
1546 £22.50 LM
1600 £101 VT
1620 £101 VT
1633 £141 VT & XC
1646 £17.50 LM
1700 £101 VT
1720 £79 VT
1733 £124 VT & XC
1746 £22.50 LM
1800 £79 VT
1820 £79 VT
1833 £82 VT & XC
1849 £22.50 LM
1900 £65 VT
1920 £49 VT
1946 £17.50 LM
2000 £27 VT



A lot of those are Advance tickets or SOSs which are not almost the same price if you come back.

The only ones where a return would be the same price are the £70.60 SVSs where the return is £71.60.

 

[MarkyT]

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 think I agree with every point there. I'm not convinced about the month validity on two opposing singles purchased together. If you want flexibility on what day to return buy the second single when you know what date you want to travel.

I tend to think advance purchase is a poor weapon to manage demand and revenue. I'm not arguing against variable pricing and and quotas, but the need to book a long time in advance as the only way to obtain good deals. Perhaps there should be also be freedom for train companies to dump empty seats at special offer 'stand by' prices at short notice where they're available on particular trains, even manage emerging demand on busy peak services. That way they could even leverage seat bookings even where made with open tickets. Mobile technology could allow an offer to be made to people who have already bought a more expensive ticket and booked a seat on a specific busy train - e.g. get a £10 refund if you move your booking from to the 18:10 from the 17:30, now projected to be full and standing. BTW I'm not implying compulsory reservations. I would have a nominal fee for a reservation actually to discourage them on advance booking of open tickets when people don't know which train they're aiming for, but a strong recommendation to book WHEN they do know when they are travelling, with the offer system deployed to nudge them towards the company's preferred trains. Perhaps an initial advance booking of a time banded open ticket based on specific enquiry times could store a tentative reservation so that at a specific time before expected travel an offer to confirm a seat booking could be made together with any financial incentivisation, like a mobile-check in concept.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I don't see why tomorrow is too close to the time to look at the fares? As Alex Hynes once told me, a similar number of Advances are sold the day before travel as during the whole period prior to that when they go on sale. ...

That's really interesting. Was that across the industry?

 

[Typhoon]

Highlighted, what do you mean by that? Surely it can be from any paying group?

I suspect they might not want to pile too much more pain on commuters because they were up in arms after the last increase (3.4%), inflation is still at 2.5% and 12 members of the present cabinet have constituencies in commuterland.

Of course, I may be wrong but irate constituents may be the last thing a minority government needs. Didn't they limit the fares rise a few years ago the last time there were grumblings? I don't think they would be able to pull that trick off again (as stated elsewhere, need to keep franchise bids coming in).

The occasional/ leisure traveller is a less homogenised group so easier to pick on.

 

[mmh]

I don't see why tomorrow is too close to the time to look at the fares? As Alex Hynes once told me, a similar number of Advances are sold the day before travel as during the whole period prior to that when they go on sale. But if you do it one month from nowl on 6th Jun, the ratio between the prices is not very different:

1446 £22.50 LM
1500 £65 VT
1520 £67 VT
1546 £22.50 LM
1600 £101 VT
1620 £101 VT
1633 £141 VT & XC
1646 £17.50 LM
1700 £101 VT
1720 £79 VT
1733 £124 VT & XC
1746 £22.50 LM
1800 £79 VT
1820 £79 VT
1833 £82 VT & XC
1849 £22.50 LM
1900 £65 VT
1920 £49 VT
1946 £17.50 LM
2000 £27 VT



A lot of those are Advance tickets or SOSs which are not almost the same price if you come back.

The only ones where a return would be the same price are the £70.60 SVSs where the return is £71.60.

SVRs are a bit of a red herring here too, as route: any permitted ones aren't valid on most of the VT services in that list (between 15:01 and 18:44), so another reason the LM services will be popular and busy.

 

[JaJaWa]

Weren't trials of this meant to begin May last year? See my previous thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-and-tocs-to-trial-radical-fares-overhaul.140271/

Rail companies to test radical fare changes for clearer, simpler ticket choices
Written on 01 February 2017.

Radical changes to rail fares that would guarantee customers simpler fares and the best possible deal every time they travel are set to be trialled by train companies.

• Trials could lead to most radical overhaul of fares system for more than 30 years
• Best value through fares to remove need for ‘split ticketing’
• Action plan for more user-friendly ticket machines
• Easy process to get the right ticket online or at stations
• Passengers on trains between London and Sheffield or Scotland will be among the first to benefit from an overhaul of rail fare regulations as part of the tests agreed between train companies and the government.

Extra measures to make ticket machines more user-friendly are set out in an action plan published by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) – which represents train companies and Network Rail. These will also give customers better information and make it simpler to find the right ticket at the right price.

Trials are due to start in May this year on selected routes of new pricing, simpler routes to give customers clearer choices, and the removal of unnecessary and unwanted fares from the system.

The trials to simplify the complex rail fares system will mean:

• A route will be overhauled to reflect what is actually on offer, ending the existing situation where changes to train services in many cases only allow fares to be added to the system rather than older, less relevant routes which customers do not use being removed from the fares system to make it clearer;
• A best value end-to-end ‘through fare’ will be offered for test journeys where customers change trains, by offering one price combining the cheapest fare for each leg of the journey. Current rules require operators to set and maintain a through price even where there are cheaper deals;
• Easier journey planning by showing customers the best price in each direction on selected routes, allowing customers to mix and match the best fare – like airline bookings.

This requires changes to regulated return fares dating back to the 1980s that can’t be sold easily online, giving customers much more clarity and simplicity.

A ten-point plan and design guidelines for ticket machines include getting rid of jargon, informing customers when a machine will start to sell cheaper off-peak tickets and making clear what types of tickets machines do and do not sell. All the improvements to ticket machines will be in place by the end of this year, several by the summer.

Jacqueline Starr, RDG Managing Director of Customer Experience, said:

“We know customers can find it hard to get the right ticket for their journey due to complex rules and regulations built up by governments over decades. There are more than 16million different train fares, many of which nobody buys. This also makes it more difficult to give passengers the right, simple options on ticket machines.

“Working with government, we’re determined to overhaul the system to cut out red-tape, jargon and complication to make it easier for customers to buy fares they can trust, including from ticket machines.”

The trials will be designed to establish the changes needed to regulation and processes so that train companies can offer customers simpler, easy to use fares. Decades-old government rules covering rail fares, originally intended to protect customers but introduced before the internet and online booking, have prevented train companies from being more flexible in offering tickets that customers want.

The changes will build upon improvements already being made to give customers better information – particularly for those buying online or from ticket machines - and more confidence that the tickets they are buying are right for their journeys, making it clear when and where they are valid.

Train companies have worked with the government and consumer groups to agree an action plan to help passengers choose the best deal on fares.

Ends

Notes to editors

The trials focus on three typical examples of the need to modernise rail fares regulations, where they create confusion and show too many different fares:

• Routeing changes will be tested between London and Sheffield where regulations date back to when the direct service was much less frequent and journeys often needed a change of train via a longer route. This means that tickets are required to be available which are not in step with actual options available now.
• Best-price through fares will be tested with CrossCountry Trains who are obliged currently by regulations to price through tickets for very long connecting journeys even where customers can beat that price by combining different types of ticket (so-called ‘split ticketing’). Train companies want to remove these expensive, obsolete through fares which in many cases nobody buys but are required by regulations which pre-date the internet and online booking.
• Single-leg pricing will be tested on the London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh routes so that customers would always know the cheapest fare for their chosen journey, out and back. Despite train companies making online booking easier, finding the best price both ways is made harder because the regulated off-peak fare is a return fare, therefore customers are often left to calculate whether two single tickets are cheaper than a return.

Regulations were designed to protect customers’ interests but now actively create confusion on websites and ticket machines. Train companies want to work with the government to discuss how the system can be updated so that consumer protection underpins giving people fares they really need - not just those on sale since 1995.

Railway Gazette have published a new article today: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-branch-reform-of-uk-rail-fares-proposed.html

‘Root and branch’ reform of UK rail fares proposed
08 May 2018

UK: The Rail Delivery Group is to undertake public consultation ahead of producing proposals for how it could work with government to implement a ‘root and branch reform’ of fare and ticket regulation.

The current regulatory structure for ticketing in Great Britain was fixed at the time of privatisation in 1995. It includes requirements for all operators to sell most tickets, through ticketing between almost all stations and the availability of a standardised range of ticketing products.

Announcing the consultation on May 8, RDG said subsequent ‘decades of well-intentioned but outdated’ regulation had led to fare options ‘that have not kept pace with technology or how people work and travel today’, highlighting the introduction of smartphones and the growth in part-time working and self-employment.

RDG commissioned KPMG to identify ‘key principles’ for the proposed reform. These principles are to improve customer satisfaction, enable a sustainable long-term model and provide value for money for government expenditure.

KPMG notes that there is ‘merit’ in retaining a set of core products, but also opportunities for greater personalisation, such as more flexible season tickets and personal travel accounts. KPMG suggests a short-term push to digital products, with a longer term push to ‘open gating’ and biometric tokens. Pricing by time and day is needed to manage demand, while fare regulation protects passengers in markets with inelastic demand. A move to single-leg pricing for return journeys could improve transparency.

RDG is to undertake the consultation in conjunction with passenger watchdog Transport Focus between June and September. RDG aims to produce a ‘road-map’ for change in late autumn, which it would then need to work with the government to implement. The consultation will not look at the division of industry costs between rail users and general taxation, which is essentially set by government policy.

RDG said examples of ‘well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive’ regulation include setting out how customers ‘must be able to buy a ticket from each of the 2 500 stations in Britain to every other station’. RDG said ‘long-standing anomalies’ include the need to buy a peak ticket for a whole trip when only part of the journey is during the peak, and ‘inflexible’ season tickets.

‘We want to develop proposals to reform fares and regulation to make it easier for our customers to get the right ticket, enhancing trust in the system and supporting continued investment to improve the service’, said RDG Chief Executive Paul Plummer. '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.’

Responding to the announcement of the consultation, Alex Hayman, Managing Director of Public Markets at consumer association Which?, said ‘passengers have struggled for far too long with a confusing ticketing system that can make it hard to pay the right fare, so passenger-focused reform of the fare system is long overdue’.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I share the sentiment of those who say that VTWC are overpriced - but only in part. I have a season ticket that covers me up to Rugby on the WCML or up to Leamington on the Chiltern Main Line. I want to make a trip to London in about 6 weeks' time, arriving and departing at the middle of the day. Why, therefore, is it significantly cheaper to get Advances on the Chiltern line train from Leamington than from Rugby - when the competition for the former is between a 1'15" through train and a one-change, longer journey, and the competition for the latter is between a 45' through train and a 1'20" through train?

VTWC are bound to have plenty of capacity and yet both they and WMT are nowhere near attractive to me pricewise as Chiltern, with whom I can get two Underground tickets included, plus some change, for the same price. It's cheaper for me to take a circuitous route via New Street and to change station to Moor Street than it is to actually go on the most sensible option - a non-stop train to London, or the fast WMT alternative.

Competition on the London-Birmingham corridor has brought great benefits to passengers. Sensible pricing across the board though, is seemingly not one of them.

 

[rs101]

It's a shame Multipass didn't seem to amount to anything. Seemed like a great concept, but I guess the complexities of pricing were too great.

( https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-fare-after-travelled-multipass-british-rail )

MultiPass is an app that finds the best fare for the day or week, depending on how the user has travelled previously. Commuters have to check in on the app after arriving at a train station. The app then works as a virtual pass, recording journeys, with data used to work out best fare. A trial involving 100 people last year is now being extended to a full operating system from May in a bid to replace paper tickets.

[..]

The MultiPass system works in a similar way to London’s Oyster card.../QUOTE]