Rail fares advice 'inadequate', says Which?

[yorkie]

Personally, I think ticket office staff should know about some common local ticket splits and advise customers towards them. Obviously it would be unrealistic to get them to learn every split ticketing combination, but local ones and then the major boundaries (to get PTE tickets etc.)..

That's against the rules of impartial retailing. Some ticket office staff do that, but it's a bit of a risk as their managers may not appreciate it. Those who do, I would praise them but not publicly reveal too much because I wouldn't want to get them into trouble. And I don't think they "should" know about them and offer them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should someone living in the West Midlands subsidise someone from Staffordshire going for a day out in Warwickshire?

By that logic, why should people from anywhere else in the UK subsidise the Scottish Highlands? There'd be no railways in the Highlands at all, and as for the roads, most of them would be dirt tracks!

 

[Mojo]

That's against the rules of impartial retailing. Some ticket office staff do that, but it's a bit of a risk as their managers may not appreciate it. Those who do, I would praise them but not publicly reveal too much because I wouldn't want to get them into trouble. And I don't think they "should" know about them and offer them.

Agreed, even I and others on this forum have spent years buying certain tickets in the belief they were cheaper, and have then discovered even cheaper ways of doing it! It would be near enough impossible to check every split involving singles, returns, seasons, rovers, rangers, local authority tickets, etc., and then looking at routeing guide loopholes and easements and buying further than your destination, being "doubly valid," etc.

 

[Railjet]

That's against the rules of impartial retailing. Some ticket office staff do that, but it's a bit of a risk as their managers may not appreciate it. Those who do, I would praise them but not publicly reveal too much because I wouldn't want to get them into trouble. And I don't think they "should" know about them and offer them.

Agreed, even I and others on this forum have spent years buying certain tickets in the belief they were cheaper, and have then discovered even cheaper ways of doing it! It would be near enough impossible to check every split involving singles, returns, seasons, rovers, rangers, local authority tickets, etc., and then looking at routeing guide loopholes and easements and buying further than your destination, being "doubly valid," etc.

I'm losing the logic a bit here. Are you saying, let's not rock the boat, we know how to get the cheapest fares, but as long as it doesn't get out to the general travelling public, the TOCs won't mind, so there are always going to be better deals available for the knowledgeable few than for the great unwashed masses?

Just to clarify things, guys.

 

[clagmonster]

I think it is more that people don't want the information widely publishing so as to not draw it to the attention of retail managers, who may then remove anomalies by increases prices or imposing restrictions on the cheaper tickets.

 

[Railjet]

I think it is more that people don't want the information widely publishing so as to not draw it to the attention of retail managers, who may then remove anomalies by increases prices or imposing restrictions on the cheaper tickets.

Isn't that the same thing? Fares will go up if everyone knows the tricks - so let's keep them in the dark?

 

[Ticket Man]

I think it is more that people don't want the information widely publishing so as to not draw it to the attention of retail managers, who may then remove anomalies by increases prices or imposing restrictions on the cheaper tickets.

good point, investigate the smoke a little closer, and people will find the fire which needs to be put out

I have to agree that the current fares system is far too complex, I've spent 3 years so far on the other side of the fence and I'm still coming across un-heard restrictions, un-told easements and it shows no sign of relenting.

I think it would be fair to assess that given the current system, staff know enough to advise the right information most of the time. its that last 10% of wrongly advised customers that would require the 90% increase in staff training and resources.

So I guess the real question here is, at what price do we obtain 100% accuracy

 

[Mojo]

I'm losing the logic a bit here. Are you saying, let's not rock the boat, we know how to get the cheapest fares, but as long as it doesn't get out to the general travelling public, the TOCs won't mind, so there are always going to be better deals available for the knowledgeable few than for the great unwashed masses?

Just to clarify things, guys.

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have a public forum here where people can discuss those things and share knowledge which is easy to find on the internet.

The issue is, how on earth are ticket office staff supposed to know the cheapest combination of tickets, or individual ticket to sell if they are required to sell the cheapest way of doing the customer's journey. At present they sell what they are asked for, which in most cases will be a single ticket from A to Z.

 

[Railjet]

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have a public forum here where people can discuss those things and share knowledge which is easy to find on the internet.

Well, I don't think the average passenger is going to come looking for you. There are a lot of things on the internet - it doesn't mean everyone knows about them.

The issue is, how on earth are ticket office staff supposed to know the cheapest combination of tickets, or individual ticket to sell if they are required to sell the cheapest way of doing the customer's journey. At present they sell what they are asked for, which in most cases will be a single ticket from A to Z.

That's not the main issue though, is it? It may be the issue for TOCs and ticket office staff, but they are not the customers, and the railway isn't run for the benefit of the staff (hopefully).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The vast majority of surveys have something to prove, that is the whole point of surveys afterall, the problem is that the people doing the survey have a bias, deliberate or not. ATOC want you to believe everything is fine, Passenger Focus want cheaper fares and better service, Which? want to sell magazines through tabloid-esque surveys and reviews. If they don't have something to prove, they are made by secondary school kids (not being insulting here, in my experience it is true).

Personally, I think ticket office staff should know about some common local ticket splits and advise customers towards them. Obviously it would be unrealistic to get them to learn every split ticketing combination, but local ones and then the major boundaries (to get PTE tickets etc.)....

I would say the majority of ticket office staff already know 'some' common local splits.

....It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man for ATOC to create an app which works out all the ticket splits (and the specific trains that split would/would not be valid on). In fact, I think these apps. have already been developed but rely on data which ATOC refuse to give out freely (which should IMO be public domain).

I can think of a couple of websites that have tried that already and not been too successful, but, here is just one problem....

What happens if a train makes an irregular calling pattern? The split has to account for where the train stops in most cases, so if the 1500hrs from Euston is first stop is Rugby and the ticket splits there, but having bought the tickets they decide to travel an hour earlier even though the first stop on the 1400hrs is Crewe, what happens to the passenger? Does the Guard/TM do his job properly, with the risk of being labelled 'jobsworth' or 'incompetent'? Will the Daily Mail (or other newspapers and reporters) be 'on the case' about these 'ludicrous restrictions'? Will the CR dept. be flooded with complaints from people who were 'innocently caught out' by 'deliberate tactics to raise revenue'?

The 'App' would have to list alll the ticket conditions, check for any advance fares available (if applicable) and list all of the restrictions, which I'm sure the passenger will take time to read, familiarise themselves with and keep to! I think we already know some people are incapable of that as it is!

And on top of all of the above, what happens if the passenger has a local railcard, what if there are offers for travelling in groups like Northern's Duo, or Groupsave? And what about Club 55? I suppose the websites/ticketing systems should ask how old the passenger(s) is/are, just incase?

 

[cuccir]

Thankfully ATOC have launched new measures to further simplify tickets.

 

[blacknight]

East Coast plan to improve servicehttp://www.tssa.org.uk/article-101.php3?id_article=6476

 

[Failed Unit]

East Coast plan to improve servicehttp://www.tssa.org.uk/article-101.php3?id_article=6476

Great - don't companies realise that doing this reduces customer service. Some companies are moving the call centres back because customers hate dealing with outsourced call centres. It is certainly a factor for me, i will not deal with financial institutions with call centres out of the uk.

 

[Zoe]

Why should an employee of a profit making business (a TOC) help with reducing revenue? This is would they would be doing if they encouraged splits.

 

[Failed Unit]

Why should an employee of a profit making business (a TOC) help with reducing revenue? This is would they would be doing if they encouraged splits.

Ticketing is complex, I am not sure if the price the flow if the get more ORCATs. Bristol - Birmingham may be priced by xc. Splitting at Cheltenham may result in more orcats to FGW if they get a greater share of the ticket as lead operator in the flow. The example should be taken as a principle as I don't know but just saying how it could be a benefit.

The other thing is that the split may make the journey affordable so some revenue is better than none. Example is CDR split at stamford rather than by the off-peak Peterborough - Birmingham.

 

[Oswyntail]

Why should an employee of a profit making business (a TOC) help with reducing revenue? This is would they would be doing if they encouraged splits.

Actually, that poses an interesting question about just HOW a franchisee should be increasing their profits. In general, a franchise sets standards, prices and other conditions centrally and leaves the franchisee to increase their revenue by utilising local marketing and customer service. A franchisee in a coffee chain does not change the price of a latte, but does her best to attract local custom. It could be argued that TOCS are owners, not franchisees (in which case, let them set their own fares and buy their own stock) but I believe we are still meant to think otherwise.
IMHO, fares (ticket types and restrictions) should be set nationally on a simple, rational basis, and the TOCs should look to increase revenue by better service (in all its guises)

 

[talltim]

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have a public forum here where people can discuss those things and share knowledge which is easy to find on the internet.

The issue is, how on earth are ticket office staff supposed to know the cheapest combination of tickets, or individual ticket to sell if they are required to sell the cheapest way of doing the customer's journey. At present they sell what they are asked for, which in most cases will be a single ticket from A to Z.

By having simple fare structures that mean that splits, obscure routing etc aren't necessary to get the cheapest fare. Then ticket office staff could just sell a ticket from A-B knowing it would be the cheapest.

 

[bnm]

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't have a public forum here where people can discuss those things and share knowledge which is easy to find on the internet.

But we also have a Private Messaging system whereby someone can respond to a fares query with an anomaly/loophole that can be exploited to save the enquirer a few bob. I've had such a message myself from a moderator on this forum, in response to a fares query I posted, with the implied suggestion that it is being sent privately so as to not bring it to wider attention. I'm grateful for the money saving tip, but not so comfortable with the idea that only a select few should benefit from the information.

And another moderator, again by Private Message, where they explicity said in reference to anomalies/loopholes; "....there are some I will definitely NOT publicise."

Understandable self-interest, but examples of knowledge that is most definitely NOT 'easy to find on the internet.'

 

[cuccir]

That response is just so gob-smackingly wrong I can only assume it is meant to be ironic. Patronisingly getting passengers to pay more for the privilege of not being confused? (Why not explain things clearly then?). Or saying they can probably afford it? Why don't you means test them first, then look at their commitments and priorities, so you can decide more accurately? Oh yes, that would hold up the queue.
The whole question of "splits" is just plain wrong anyway. This is a national rail network, franchised to operators, and fares should be uniform, understandable, and available to anyone - not just the geeks who have access to the fares manual.

You misunderstand my point, though I agree it was poorly worded (I spent a while trying to get it right and wasn't particularly satisfied anyway). I wasn't defending the current ticketing system and I agree that it is unfair that certain people benefit from it simply because they have more time on their hands!

What I meant is that for a whole number of good reasons, it shouldn't be incumbent on staff at a ticket office to be the ones solving the problem of an overly complex fares system. The current guideline - that they should sell the cheapest 'obvious' fare and sell splits if asked specifically - is the correct one.

And there are many travellers - often irregular ones - who would rather buy a straight-forward through ticket even though they know it costs more, to avoid any hassle. I'm not saying they're too stupid and would become confused; rather, they just don't have the time/inclination to save the amount of money that splitting can save. Certainly, this is the viewpoint of my current housemate even though I'm always trying to push him towards cheaper tickets, and I can think of others who have expressed similar views when I've tried to suggest splits or other tactics to reduce costs.

 

[Oswyntail]

...What I meant is that for a whole number of good reasons, it shouldn't be incumbent on staff at a ticket office to be the ones solving the problem of an overly complex fares system. ....

Totally agree - sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick.

 

[deltic]

By having simple fare structures that mean that splits, obscure routing etc aren't necessary to get the cheapest fare. Then ticket office staff could just sell a ticket from A-B knowing it would be the cheapest.

A simple fare system would almost certainly mean going back to a pre-computer BR type fare structure where there would be no cheap advance tickets. While few people believe it the actual price paid for rail tickets has barely increased in real (ie discounting inflation) terms over the last decade as few people pay the "headline" full price fare. It is possible to make long distance journeys now which are well below the prices charged by BR.

For better or worse we have moved to a market price based system which aims to maximise total revenues and hence minimise subsidies. With some 6m possible origin/destination combinations before considering routing options it is not surprising there are large scale anomalies in the existing fare structures.

Similar discrepancies exist in the airline and coach sectors where few people make a fuss of them.

There is no way we will move back to distance based rail fares.

 

[Zoe]

For better or worse we have moved to a market price based system which aims to maximise total revenues and hence minimise subsidies.

But how can these TOCs afford to offer these rock bottom advance fares without some type of subsidy?

 

[gordonthemoron]

to fill trains that would otherwise be (half) empty? Some income is better than none

 

[Zoe]

to fill trains that would otherwise be (half) empty? Some income is better than none

But if the walk-on fares were not so stupidly expensive the trains wouldn't be so empty.

 

[Mojo]

Well, I don't think the average passenger is going to come looking for you. There are a lot of things on the internet - it doesn't mean everyone knows about them.

I disagree; many of the posts on this section of the forum are from those who have made one or two posts and then disappear again. It seems to be the view amongst many that only rail enthusiasts are the ones who try and save money by splitting, using the routeing guide and buying for journeys of a longer distance, which is simply incorrect.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Bit if the walk-on fares were not so stupidly expensive the trains wouldn't be so empty.

true, and I don't really think that the railway operators understand how to make yield management (advance fares) work properly

 

[Zoe]

true, and I don't really think that the railway operators understand how to make yield management (advance fares) work properly

Well the cheapest fares have to be booked so far in advance that some people don't end up travelling but since there is no refund available, the TOC keep the revenue. The result of this though is that the seat is still reserved and I've been on quite a few trains where a coach is full of reservations but many don't have anyone sitting in them.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and EMT have this odd habit of fares going up and then down again

 

[Mojo]

By having simple fare structures that mean that splits, obscure routing etc aren't necessary to get the cheapest fare. Then ticket office staff could just sell a ticket from A-B knowing it would be the cheapest.

This is a completely different issue though. One commentator suggested that staff should offer splits and I'm trying to put across my view that it's likely to be impractical.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But we also have a Private Messaging system whereby someone can respond to a fares query with an anomaly/loophole that can be exploited to save the enquirer a few bob. I've had such a message myself from a moderator on this forum, in response to a fares query I posted, with the implied suggestion that it is being sent privately so as to not bring it to wider attention. I'm grateful for the money saving tip, but not so comfortable with the idea that only a select few should benefit from the information.

And another moderator, again by Private Message, where they explicity said in reference to anomalies/loopholes; "....there are some I will definitely NOT publicise."

Understandable self-interest, but examples of knowledge that is most definitely NOT 'easy to find on the internet.'

It's nothing to do with withholding information from other passengers; the chance of someone with the power to change things and remove this benefit for all to use by seeing a post made in a public area of this forum is real.

 

[bnm]

It's nothing to do with withholding information from other passengers; the chance of someone with the power to change things and remove this benefit for all to use by seeing a post made in a public area of this forum is real.

I don't doubt that. But there are no guarantees that the person you share the information with privately won't subsequently share it publicly. You can ask them not to, but you can't force them.

Where do you draw the line? Well known anomalies/loopholes are OK? But less well known aren't? If I reply publicly to a query with a little known loophole, do I get moderated?

 

[yorkie]

I'm losing the logic a bit here. Are you saying, let's not rock the boat, we know how to get the cheapest fares, but as long as it doesn't get out to the general travelling public, the TOCs won't mind, so there are always going to be better deals available for the knowledgeable few than for the great unwashed masses?

Just to clarify things, guys.

Your quote refereed to the issue of ticket office staff not being obliged to offer splits, that is completely separate to the issue of wanting to keep cheaper fares secret (which was touched on in clagmonster's reply to you).

Isn't that the same thing? Fares will go up if everyone knows the tricks - so let's keep them in the dark?

It's actually a very complex issue, and deserves a thread of it's own.

A very short answer would be that in some cases there is a strong possibility of your fear being realised, in others there is no possibility, but for most it would be somewhere in between. Also a fare does not have to go up for a loophole to be plugged.

That's not the main issue though, is it? It may be the issue for TOCs and ticket office staff, but they are not the customers, and the railway isn't run for the benefit of the staff (hopefully).

Again a very complex issue, deserving of a thread of it's own I'd say.

In short the railway is run for the benefit of passengers, and even society in general. But the TOCs themselves are run for the benefit of shareholders. The franchises exist for the benefit of customers but people who run them have to look after their shareholders first.

Some might argue that such a system is fundamentally flawed.

Ticketing is complex, I am not sure if the price the flow if the get more ORCATs. Bristol - Birmingham may be priced by xc. Splitting at Cheltenham may result in more orcats to FGW if they get a greater share of the ticket as lead operator in the flow.

ORCATS distributes revenue by predicting passenger numbers based on the timetable, according to everything I've ever read about it.

So if 100% of Bristol - Birmingham passengers are predicted to use XC, then XC would get 100% of revenue, as far as I know based on what I've read. However if only 70% of Cheltenham - Bristol passengers are predicted to use XC, then XC lose out on the remaining 30% as well as losing out on the overall fare being lower.

On the other hand...

The other thing is that the split may make the journey affordable so some revenue is better than none. Example is CDR split at stamford rather than by the off-peak Peterborough - Birmingham.

...I agree, some passengers would refuse to travel by train at the ridiculously inflated through fare (and I would be one of them) so it's easy for the TOCs to moan about loss of revenue, but you can almost guarantee they will take all the passengers doing splits for granted and won't be considering the possibility that these people may refuse to be ripped off and not travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't doubt that. But there are no guarantees that the person you share the information with privately won't subsequently share it publicly. You can ask them not to, but you can't force them.

True but if they do, they may well be spoiling it for everyone else! People may be reluctant to share gems with them again.

Where do you draw the line?

That's subjective!

Well known anomalies/loopholes are OK?

If they're already well-known then you can't keep them a secret!

But less well known aren't?

Depends! I'd say that Newcastle-Carlisle via Leeds is an example of one that was quite useful that arguably should not have been revealed to Northern/ATOC in the way that it was (and the person who did it, while I won't criticise him, did spoil it for a lot of people and people have their own views on that!) and is one that really should have been sent via PM and people should have used it responsibly and carrying a copy of the relevant maps (some people did this with success in the early days!). It did take about a year for Northern to get ATOC to remove it though, and it took about a further year or two for it to be removed in the opposite direction! But sometimes ATOC can work a lot quicker than that.

If I reply publicly to a query with a little known loophole, do I get moderated?

No, but people may not be best pleased if it almost immediately gets withdrawn meaning no-one can use it!