Railcard Overlap

[RyanOPlasty]

Why are there both 16-17 and 16-25 railcards?

As the 16-17 railcard has a larger discount, why would any 16 or 17 year old buy a 16-25 railcard?

This seems to lead to accidental or in some cases, deliberate selection of the wrong railcard as evidenced in disputes and prosecutions.

Should the 16-25 become an 18-25 railcard, with the option to buy and use before the 18th birthday?

 

[SaltAndVinegar]

The 16-17 isn’t valid for discounts on Scotrail or Cal Sleeper. Scotland has a Young Scot card that can be used for discounts, but less than 50% offered by the 16-17. Both 16-17 and Young Scot offer discounts on season tickets.

Save Money on Travel With Your Young Scot Card

Find out how you can get cheaper transport on buses, trains and ferries with your Young Scot NEC.

young.scot

So if you want to travel on Scotrail or the sleeper with a discount you need the 16-25 or a Young Scot card if eligible.

Also the 16-25 gives discounts on first class advance fares whereas the 16-17 does not.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Also, the 16-17 Railcard is no longer valid once the holder turns 18 (except, in limited circumstances, for discounted season tickets), so anyone that's buying a railcard who is, say, seventeen & three quarters already, is more likely to buy the 16-25 Railcard.

 

[Watershed]

The 16-17 isn’t valid for discounts on Scotrail or Cal Sleeper. Scotland has a Young Scot card that can be used for discounts, but less than 50% offered by the 16-17. Both 16-17 and Young Scot offer discounts on season tickets.

Save Money on Travel With Your Young Scot Card

Find out how you can get cheaper transport on buses, trains and ferries with your Young Scot NEC.

young.scot

So if you want to travel on Scotrail or the sleeper with a discount you need the 16-25 or a Young Scot card if eligible.

Also the 16-25 gives discounts on first class advance fares whereas the 16-17 does not.

It's incredibly how much trouble ScotRail's refusal to accept an otherwise industry-wide product causes. So many people claim to "accidentally" apply the 16-17 Saver discount when they instead have a 16-25 Railcard. If the 16-17 Saver were valid everywhere then the 16-25 Railcard could genuinely be restricted and renamed to the 18-25 Railcard this avoiding any confusion.

I don't doubt that the majority select the wrong Railcard knowingly but there will be some who make a genuine mistake as a result. And changing it would remove any 'plausible deniability'.

There's also no rationale for 16-17 Savers having different expiry rules to the Family & Friends Railcard. With the latter, a teenager that turns 16 during the Railcard's validity can not only continue to count as the required child but also benefit from discounted child-rate fares.

As with so many complexities with rail ticketing, it all comes down to a refusal to establish and enforce consistent nationwide standards.

 

[saismee]

Why not rename it to "Under 25 Railcard"? It can keep the same terms and still be used the same, but it simplifies the name.

EDIT: maybe "25 and Under Railcard" as it's valid while 25.

 

[blimmo]

Why not rename it to "Under 25 Railcard"? It can keep the same terms and still be used the same, but it simplifies the name.

EDIT: maybe "25 and Under Railcard" as it's valid while 25.

And 26! (Sometimes)

Could just make it "young persons" again so it matches the code.

 

[[.n]]

And 26! (Sometimes)

Could just make it "young persons" again so it matches the code.

its actually potentially available to people of any age

 

[Joe Paxton]

Why not rename it to "Under 25 Railcard"? It can keep the same terms and still be used the same, but it simplifies the name.

EDIT: maybe "25 and Under Railcard" as it's valid while 25.

It would have been better if the 16-17 Saver Railcard had been given a better name, one that would lack any ambiguity in terms of confusion with the 16-25 Railcard.

I was going to say just call it the Saver Railcard but I don't think that's distinctive enough.

Given that yellow is the principle colour already used in the 16-17 Saver's graphic design, perhaps one could just rename it the Yellow Railcard?

Though that wouldn't work well if Transport Focus's suggestion of train companies giving out "yellow cards" for first-time ticketing offences was adopted:
BBC News - Train firms urged to give 'yellow cards' instead of fines

 

[RyanOPlasty]

As around 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds are still in education, why should they pay the adult fare at all?
The situation is better than in my youth, when adult fares started at 14. Even then it was a hangover from earlier years, as by then everyone was in education until 16.
Would it be simpler to make child fares available to under-18s?

 

[MotCO]

Why not make all railcards have the same conditions and discounts? Then when buying a ticket you can just select 'Railcard' and get the right discount, with no room for error - and fewer passengers coming to this forum after being caught having selected the wrong railcard!

 

[Watershed]

Why not make all railcards have the same conditions and discounts? Then when buying a ticket you can just select 'Railcard' and get the right discount, with no room for error - and fewer passengers coming to this forum after being caught having selected the wrong railcard!

The industry prefers to have policies that it thinks maximises revenue to the nth degree, rather than a fair or simple system. We are allergic to properly subsidising public transport in this country.

Unfortunately, any 'simplification' will likely see a reversion to the lowest common denominator, i.e. all Railcards (except the Disabled Railcard) not being valid before 09:30 and potentially having a minimum fare.

We have seen precedents along those lines with the LNER 'Simple Fares' sham trial. The recent survey about what people would do if Railcard restrictions are tightened gives a clue as to the direction of travel in the industry.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Unfortunately, any 'simplification' will likely see a reversion to the lowest common denominator, i.e. all Railcards (except the Disabled Railcard) not being valid before 09:30 and potentially having a minimum fare.

Is this an accurate description of the current state of play? My impression is that the current setup is either a minimum fare during morning peak (e.g 16-25 (except Jul, Aug), 25-30) or no use during morning peak (e.g. Senior in SouthEast). Off the top of my head I can't think of any cards which have a minimum fare all day through.

 

[Haywain]

I can't think of any cards which have a minimum fare all day through.

Network Railcard on Monday to Friday, minimum fare £13.00 and no use before 10:00.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Network Railcard on Monday to Friday, minimum fare £13.00 and no use before 10:00.

Thanks.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Would it be simpler to make child fares available to under-18s?

Isn't a 16-17 railcard essentially a means by which rail tickets are still available for under 18s (i.e. 16 & 17 year olds) at child fares?

 

[Deerfold]

As around 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds are still in education, why should they pay the adult fare at all?
The situation is better than in my youth, when adult fares started at 14. Even then it was a hangover from earlier years, as by then everyone was in education until 16.
Would it be simpler to make child fares available to under-18s?

West Yorkshire has thought this for a long time.
When I was at school in the 80s and 90s half fare on trains (and buses) in the county were available until the end of August (EDIT: possibly September?) following your 18th birthday.
Now it's until the day before your 19th.

 

[81A]

Also, the 16-25 can be added to an Oyster, whereas the 16-17 can't. So if making regular journeys in London, the 16-25 can actually be worth getting in addition to/instead of the 16-17.

 

[Watershed]

Also, the 16-25 can be added to an Oyster, whereas the 16-17 can't. So if making regular journeys in London, the 16-25 can actually be worth getting in addition to/instead of the 16-17.

You can get a 50% discount on most PAYG fares with a 16+ Oyster card, which is cheaper than a 16-25 Railcard. The one-off £22 application fee gives you a card that could be valid for nearly 3 years, depending on when your birthday falls in the year (it expires on 30th September the year after the holder's 18th birthday). London residents also get free bus and tram travel thrown in.

 

[Deerfold]

You can get a 50% discount on most PAYG fares with a 16+ Oyster card, which is cheaper than a 16-25 Railcard. The one-off £22 application fee gives you a card that could be valid for nearly 3 years, depending on when your birthday falls in the year (it expires on 30th September the year after the holder's 18th birthday). London residents also get free bus and tram travel thrown in.

Plus the cost of a passport (in most cases) if they don't already have one.

 

[Watershed]

Plus the cost of a passport (in most cases) if they don't already have one.

A birth certificate or EEA ID is accepted as an alternative.

 

[OscarH]

I think the answer to the core question is that the 16-25 existed first, and renaming things is hard so it wasn't done when the 16-17 was finally introduced. It might happen one day, both starting with 16 does cause confusion in drop downs.

The fact there's a couple of cases where the 16-25 is better complicates things, and is just ludicrous -it should just directly map to child fares across the whole country, but we can't have things that simple (frankly the only reason for it to exist in my view as opposed to increasing the child age to 18 is so theres some form of "ID" for ages where it'd be hard to guess by look)

 

[[.n]]

I think the answer to the core question is that the 16-25 existed first, and renaming things is hard so it wasn't done when the 16-17 was finally introduced. It might happen one day, both starting with 16 does cause confusion in drop downs.

The fact there's a couple of cases where the 16-25 is better complicates things, and is just ludicrous -it should just directly map to child fares across the whole country, but we can't have things that simple (frankly the only reason for it to exist in my view as opposed to increasing the child age to 18 is so theres some form of "ID" for ages where it'd be hard to guess by look)

The 16-25 is itself a renamed ticket being the Young Person railcard before. Even then as I have have already noted its confusing because it is potentially valid for any age from 16-100+

 

[saismee]

Plus the cost of a passport (in most cases) if they don't already have one.

People aged 15 and 9 months old can get a provisional driving license.

 

[Deerfold]

People aged 15 and 9 months old can get a provisional driving license.

Is that accepted as proof of age for getting an 16+ Oystercard?

 

[saismee]

Is that accepted as proof of age for getting an 16+ Oystercard?

I believe it is as it would be considered a valid EEA license.

 

[Deerfold]

I believe it is as it would be considered a valid EEA license.

It wouldn't be considered a national ID card

 

[saismee]

It wouldn't be considered a national ID card

Actually this conversation is pointless as I think you now need a passport to get a provisional license

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Actually this conversation is pointless as I think you now need a passport to get a provisional license

Some minimal research on https://www.gov.uk/apply-first-provisional-driving-licence suggests not:

You’ll be told when you sign in if you need to prove your identity. This is to keep your details safe and usually involves using photo ID like a passport.

My italics - but it suggests that a passport isn't an absolute requirement.