RDG plans to stop split ticketing

[yorkie]

Update: see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rdg-plans-to-stop-split-ticketing.177688/ for more recent information about this


This is an old article however the plans described in the article are being formulated and I want to pre-empt any decision that is announced by making it clear that any attempt to stop us accessing good value fares will be resisted.
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...ets-starbucks-how-to-save-money-a8513916.html

Yet the split ticket websites and apps that make it easy to get around the fares system could be the trigger for the root-and-branch reform that the rail industry says is essential.

There is no way they can "reform" the system so that it is no longer cheaper to split.

For example, take Reading to Manchester. Under BR the old Saver Return (SVR, now called Off Peak Return) was valid at any time.

Arriva CrossCountry made it cheaper to split for pre-0930 journeys when they introduced their ridiculous ticket restrictions around 8 years ago. Before that, there was no need to split for many XC long distance journeys.

Of course, RDG likes to say that split ticketing was around since BR. The reality is that split ticketing always has been and always will be a thing, but not to the extent that it is today! The huge amount of splitting that needs to be done in this era is because of the fact that further restrictions were imposed since privatisation.

So, the price you need to pay today before 0930 will vary depending on how early you start. The idea that the journey should cost £196.25 return is absurd. So if you depart at 6am, more of the journey is going to be "peak" than if you depart at 7am, 8am and so on.

So how could you avoid the need to split? Have loads of different price bands, like about 10 different prices graded between £85.40 and £196.25? You'd run out of names e.g. "Semi Off Peak" or "Super Duper Off Peak".

So, no, this is not practicable. Therefore, splitting will always have to be 'a thing'.

If many more passengers exploit the baked-in anomalies to save cash, says Andy Wakeford, “the finances are not going to continue to work in the way they have in the past”.

Under BR the finances were that Reading to Manchester cost a reasonable sum at any time. It is Arriva XC who messed things up. The finances now work that Arriva XC knows many business people will pay £196.25. But the reality is most people will not pay that much! Some will be lost to rail (XC do not care because the trains are busy anyway) and some will split. XC will see the revenue difference between the price of split tickets and the full Anytime fare as a loss of revenue to them, even though the people doing this would not be prepared to pay that amount. Train companies like XC harp on about lost revenue, but ignore the fact that this was not revenue the previous company (Virgin XC) or BR had because they simply allowed the SVR to be used at any time!

“The worst thing in the world is to leave it until there is a crisis, because good decisions are not made in crisis situations.”

There is no "crisis". The only "crisis" is an entirely privatised TOC induced "crisis"; it is the privatised train companies that have introduced more and more restrictions on through fares, as well as raising the cost of "premium" journeys (e.g. XC, LNER, TPE etc increasing their fares at a faster rate than Northern) that means it is now often cheaper to split.

But there is no way to eliminate split ticketing. If the TOCs acted in a way that was more sensible, there would be less need for split ticketing. But they are not going to change their ways. For example LNER wants to price York to Doncaster to be significantly higher than the price of York to Sheffield. Every so often the price of York to Doncaster goes above York to Sheffield, until LNER realise this has happened and then they choose to reduce it to avoid people buying tickets to Sheffield.

Elsewhere, the likes of TPE just continue to raise their prices, oblivious to the fact that Northern priced journeys are undercutting them.

They will then harp on about how other prices are too cheap. But this is incorrect. The problem is entirely of the making of the more expensive train companies, for making their tickets too costly.

RDG want to stop split ticketing, but we must not let them, as any attempts to do this will increase the price for passengers. They want the cheaper fares to rise. This is not acceptable and we won't let them get away with it.

 

[Starmill]

Lots of train companies have worked hard to increase the opportunities for long-distance passengers to split tickets. For example Shrewsbury or Hereford to Manchester passengers were able to save much more when ATW (now TfW) introduced cheaper dedicated tickets between Crewe and Manchester. TOC restriction is of no negative consequence to someoe who is already onboard the train, so why not buy the cheaper ticket? A similar thing happened with Leeds to Newcastle passengers on TransPennine Express, whose savings from splitting at York skyrocketed when TransPennine introduced cheaper dedicated fares a few years ago from York to Newcastle and intermediate stations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But there is no way to eliminate split ticketing. If the TOCs acted in a way that was more sensible, there would be less need for split ticketing.

Iarnrod Eireann think they can eliminate split ticketing by putting a condition in the T&Cs. I'm sure RDG have considered the same.

Why would TOCs want to be more "sensible"? Arriva can rinse the people who don't know about split ticketing, or consider it too difficult. Why would they want to change?

The likes of Martin Lewis have highlighted split ticketing to the masses. Of course the greedy piggies at the TOCs are going to push back; they've got their snouts in the trough. Why treat passengers fairly when you can fleece them instead? Chin chin old chap.

Look how quickly the ALR validity rules were changed when Adonis highlighted how good value they were!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Iarnrod Eireann think they can eliminate split ticketing by putting a condition in the T&Cs. I'm sure RDG have considered the same.

RDG could, if they really wanted, stop it (and starting short, though not ending short) in one foul swoop by introducing "compostage", i.e. the requirement to in some way activate the ticket at the printed originating station before boarding. Validators would of course be nowhere near the platform, and of course validating at somewhere other than the printed origin would not work. This could be done now with existing tickets by introducing stamping machines.

But isn't it the case that there is legal precedent preventing them doing something like this, due to a legal case involving BR which BR lost?

 

[Mag_seven]

RDG could, if they really wanted, stop it (and starting short, though not ending short) in one foul swoop by introducing "compostage", i.e. the requirement to in some way activate the ticket at the printed originating station before boarding. Validators would of course be nowhere near the platform, and of course validating at somewhere other than the printed origin would not work. This could be done now with existing tickets by introducing stamping machines.

Don't give them ideas.

Problem with that is of course it would put them at odds with any aim to go over to largely "paperless" or "electronic" ticketing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't give them ideas.

Problem with that is of course it would put them at odds with any aim to go over to largely "paperless" or "electronic" ticketing.

At the risk of actually giving them ideas, it wouldn't be difficult to require activation of a mobile ticket at a specific location, either by scanning a QR code or by using the phone location.

Yes, you could spoof these things, but most people won't.

 

[yorkie]

RDG could, if they really wanted, stop it (and starting short, though not ending short) in one foul swoop by introducing "compostage", i.e. the requirement to in some way activate the ticket at the printed originating station before boarding. Validators would of course be nowhere near the platform, and of course validating at somewhere other than the printed origin would not work. This could be done now with existing tickets by introducing stamping machines.

I think this idea is too far-fetched; it would be absurd to say that all tickets (including Advance fares) should go through a compostage machine at the origin printed on the ticket, and that putting it through any other machines or at any other time would invalidate the ticket. The rail industry is supported by taxpayers and it would be politically unacceptable. In any case, we can rule out the idea as the new barcode standard has already been ratified, and this has no requirement to print a physical copy of a ticket, nor to carry out any form of compostage.

So, not only was it unfeasible, but events have now completely ruled it out anyway.

At the risk of actually giving them ideas, it wouldn't be difficult to require activation of a mobile ticket at a specific location, either by scanning a QR code or by using the phone location.

Yes, you could spoof these things, but most people won't.

You can rule out these ideas because the new barcode system does not work in this way.

I think RDG want to try to get central control over fares, with the idea (again mistaken) that they can remove anomalies. While central controlling of fares would reduce anomalies over time (but, of course, this would be done by raising the cheaper fares in order to avoid increasing subsidies, so must be resisted and campaigned against by passengers) it would not remove them.

They hint at the term "root and branch" as if to suggest that ending the current system of clustering will help. It will do no such thing. What it may do is make fares involving changes of trains even less attractive than it is now, and drive more people onto the roads (pardon the pun).

Train companies want to have their cake and eat it: they want total control over the parts of a passengers journey that are with that company, and they want to encourage passengers to buy a ticket for that segment of their journey and combine that with other tickets for connecting segments, yet they do not want to be seen to publicly endorse split ticketing. There is no reason why their own websites (and ticket offices, TVMs etc) cannot offer combinations automatically but they choose not to, for no reason other than they know some people will pay them more than the sum of the cheaper fares.

Talk of a "crisis" is so absurd because it is one the industry itself has manufactured itself and easily has the power to avoid.

It's also amusing that RDG officially encourages split ticketing by offering such combinations on their National Rail Enquiries website, yet when you press "buy now" they have chosen deliberately to direct the purchase to websites that they know choose NOT to be able to cope with selling the recommended products that NRE is suggesting, guaranteeing the user is greeted with the erroneous error "No tickets area available". No other industry chooses to act in such an anti-customer manner. It is entirely within their control. It almost looks as if it is incompetence, but it isn't. It's deliberate. And very, very weird.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The Rail Delivery Group does not let franchises; and it does not dictate the terms of rail passenger licenses. Amongst its functions are the administration of the regulatory requirements of fare creation and settlement. Most of the difficulties encountered here are the result of various bits of regulations conflicting with various other bits - it is these that need addressing by government. Any call for reform is for government who funds the industry and lets the franchises and oversees the regulatory framework.
You could centrally control fares and in that way coordinate them but the direction of travel (pardon the pun) is towards more devolution and regional autonomy. Alternatively you can reconfigure the system so that each operator has control of their own fares (subject to any fare regulation and directions on interavailability) and put in place rules and processes to allow these to be combined to best value for passengers; either is preferable to a process whereby each TOC has control of a pile of fares including those valid on other operators' services but is not allowed to discuss these with other TOCs (due to Competition Law) - that is what has caused the split ticketing issue because there is currently no functional mechanism to coordinate the whole structure.

 

[yorkie]

- that is what has caused the split ticketing issue because there is currently no functional mechanism to coordinate the whole structure.

Not really. XC themselves caused a large swathe of the "split ticketing issue" when they decided to charge more than double the price for many pre-0930 journeys. What functional mechanism could have stopped them doing that? XC saw an opportunity to charge some people £hundreds more, yet they knew full well that others would simply by-pass the rises by splitting at the first station called at after 0930. Yet XC still did it. XC chose to implement a system they knew would result in more people splitting, and they did it because overall it increased their revenues. I can't see anyone stopping the likes of XC doing things like this. There was no need for co-ordination, it was just a case of a TOC doing whatever it wanted to do, and getting away with it. And now, a few years later, that TOC tries to act as if it is some sort of victim of split ticketing.

The Rail Delivery Group does not let franchises; and it does not dictate the terms of rail passenger licenses....

True but it supports its members, some of whom happen to decide that some fares should raise by ludicrous amounts. The amounts some fares have risen to are so high, that they know full well that passengers do not need to actually purchase those fares because alternative fares (or combinations of fares) are available. Yet they still increase the fares to such unsustainable levels and then have the cheek to complain of the existence of the cheaper fares, which they cannot control.

It is understood RDG will be presenting proposals to Government:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-privatisation-nationalisation-a8562981.html

The RDG and Transport Focus, the passenger watchdog, have stressed that the resulting proposals it will put to government will be “revenue neutral”.

These proposals are totally and utterly unacceptable. I can tell you that now without seeing the detail. That is because I do not need to see the detail to know they are unacceptable. I appreciate this is not RDG's fault if it is doing what it has been told to do, but there comes a point where it needs to admit that there is no point pretending that changes can possibly happen, and should just admit that the existing structure is the least bad option (as at least people who care about saving money can easily do so by using split ticketing websites).

There is no way any of us are going to allow fares reform to happen unless the existing good value fares are protected. However we know that the good value fares are planned to rise, because of the weasel words "revenue neutral". A system that reduces the cost of ludicrous Anytime fares set by the likes of Virgin Trains (which virtually no-one who is not on expenses actually pays) and is propped up by the more reasonable fares rising drastically will be political suicide for any Government who approves it.

So, quite simply it cannot happen and it will not happen. However given the heightened threat of such proposals, we are redoubling our efforts to expose the real reasons why splitting is necessary (due to mistruths being spread) and we are increasing our warnings to people that good value fares are under threat.

Please do ensure that anyone who will listen in the Government is warned against increasing the prices of any fares as we are watching and we are going to ensure that any such plans are dropped.

 

[alistairlees]

There's a lot of wild speculation and assumptions in this thread. But not much in the way of facts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really. XC themselves caused a large swathe of the "split ticketing issue" when they decided to charge more than double the price for many pre-0930 journeys. What functional mechanism could have stopped them doing that? XC saw an opportunity to charge some people £hundreds more, yet they knew full well that others would simply by-pass the rises by splitting at the first station called at after 0930. Yet XC still did it. XC chose to implement a system they knew would result in more people splitting, and they did it because overall it increased their revenues. I can't see anyone stopping the likes of XC doing things like this. There was no need for co-ordination, it was just a case of a TOC doing whatever it wanted to do, and getting away with it. And now, a few years later, that TOC tries to act as if it is some sort of victim of split ticketing.

But is the XC thing not "collateral damage" from simplification? Many people would call for a very simple off-peak definition, and "not until after 0930" is about as simple as it gets - I think you would find a lot of people would support this becoming the definition throughout the country. Ideally, this could be smoothed with well-priced Advances particularly on longer-distance trips where it being train specific becomes less of a concern as the number of useful trains reduces.

Other than having no peak/off peak distinction, I don't think there is any way to make it simpler than this.

 

[Starmill]

But is the XC thing not "collateral damage" from simplification? Many people would call for a very simple off-peak definition, and "not until after 0930" is about as simple as it gets.

For journeys in a 'metro area' yes, it is. And for a journey like Bletchley to London it makes perfect sense (NB that the actual regime there is now about as far away from this as you can get - and to be honest, that complexity brings benefits in the form of reduced fares for those on the Super Off Peak).

But applying that restriction to a Bristol to Newcastle journey is, in effect, totally meaningless. Even you can't argue that it makes sense to charge 2.2 times the price for an arrival in Newcastle city centre at 1332 as at 1432.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For journeys in a 'metro area' yes, it is.

But applying that restriction to a Bristol to Newcastle journey is, in effect, totally meaningless. Even you can't argue that it makes sense to charge 2.2 times the price for an arrival in Newcastle city centre at 1332 as at 1432.

This is very true, which is why my preference is for a system based on arriving (morning)/departing (evening) from key "city zones" (basically any station within the main destination conurbations). But you can't deny that that, while fairer, is much more complex, though can probably just be summed up as "no arrival into a city zone before 1000, no departure 1600-1900", or somesuch.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Not really. XC themselves caused a large swathe of the "split ticketing issue" when they decided to charge more than double the price for many pre-0930 journeys. What functional mechanism could have stopped them doing that?

XC is a franchise contract let by government. The contract dictates the terms under which it operates.....!

 

[yorkie]

There's a lot of wild speculation and assumptions in this thread. But not much in the way of facts.

What are the facts then?

But is the XC thing not "collateral damage" from simplification?

No. That was a few years earlier.

Many people would call for a very simple off-peak definition, and "not until after 0930" is about as simple as it gets - I think you would find a lot of people would support this becoming the definition throughout the country. Ideally, this could be smoothed with well-priced Advances particularly on longer-distance trips where it being train specific becomes less of a concern as the number of useful trains reduces.

Other than having no peak/off peak distinction, I don't think there is any way to make it simpler than this.

The simpler you make it, the more need there is to split!

XC is a franchise contract let by government. The contract dictates the terms under which it operates.....!

I don't think the franchise terms dictacted that long distance SVRs should be restricted. However it is true that the contract dictated they raise income, and XC thought it would be a good idea to get anyone who travels before 0930 to pay the Anytime fare (even for long distance journeys such as York to Plymouth where it was obvious that people would not simply pay an extra £100+ without question!)

 

[yorkie]

either is preferable to a process whereby each TOC has control of a pile of fares including those valid on other operators' services but is not allowed to discuss these with other TOCs (due to Competition Law) - that is what has caused the split ticketing issue because there is currently no functional mechanism to coordinate the whole structure.

I don't agree this has 'caused the split ticketing issue;, but if the suggestion is that split ticketing could have been reduced by collussion, ie. the likes of XC demanding intermediate fares are higher, then the fact that the lower priced fares have not been allowed to rise is an excellent reason to demonstrate why those protections need to be preserved.

But how could anyone ever stop split ticketing in the case of a journey like Reading to Manchester at around 9am? The only way to stop people splitting for that journey, would be for XC to reverse their decision to make the Off Peak fare not valid until 0930, but XC are not prepared to do that.

 

[Intermodal]

Is split ticketing common in other countries? The Netherlands, or Germany for example?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is split ticketing common in other countries? The Netherlands, or Germany for example?

Not really, but that is because, AFAIK, they have a flat walk-up fare that doesn't vary by the time of travel, and no direct discounts for returning the same day - most fares' daywise validity (e.g. whether it's the equivalent of a Day or Period Return) is determined by the distance of the journey.

Rovers and rangers are very good value, though, so it can sometimes be cheaper to combine one of those with another ticket if travelling beyond the country border.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I suspect that I won't be popular for posting this, but let's give it a try...

How typical are we of rail users? If there's a bell curve of how much users are prepared to pay for their journey, then how close are we to the lip of the bell at the bottom left of the graph?

I suspect that we're fairly extreme. And if I am right, then the question has to be not how acceptable change will be to us, but how acceptable it will be to the bulk of rail users.

A while back, there was a political party which claimed to want to do things for the many, not for the few. I was a member of it (I'm not any more). But in this context, we have to at least consider the possibility that we're not the many, but the few.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect that I won't be popular for posting this, but let's give it a try...

How typical are we of rail users? If there's a bell curve of how much users are prepared to pay for their journey, then how close are we to the lip of the bell at the bottom left of the graph?

I suspect that we're fairly extreme. And if I am right, then the question has to be not how acceptable change will be to us, but how acceptable it will be to the bulk of rail users.

A while back, there was a political party which claimed to want to do things for the many, not for the few. I was a member of it (I'm not any more). But in this context, we have to at least consider the possibility that we're not the many, but the few.

I think it's the opposite. I suspect that the average Joe public is far more likely to jump in his car and give the train a miss because the fares are too high, than most of us are.

 

[eastdyke]

I think it's the opposite. I suspect that the average Joe public is far more likely to jump in his car and give the train a miss because the fares are too high, than most of us are.

I agree, especially when Public Joe wants to take his partner and the children

 

[bb21]

I suspect that I won't be popular for posting this, but let's give it a try...

How typical are we of rail users? If there's a bell curve of how much users are prepared to pay for their journey, then how close are we to the lip of the bell at the bottom left of the graph?

I suspect that we're fairly extreme. And if I am right, then the question has to be not how acceptable change will be to us, but how acceptable it will be to the bulk of rail users.

A while back, there was a political party which claimed to want to do things for the many, not for the few. I was a member of it (I'm not any more). But in this context, we have to at least consider the possibility that we're not the many, but the few.

To my understanding, much of this is down to scepticism over how such changes will be implemented, and the perceived ineffective/lack of regulatory effort from the DfT, rather than resistance to change itself. To me, that is fair enough given the track record especially in more recent years.

On the other hand, if the changes will benefit (not just in monetary terms but also genuine simplification, reduction of bewilderment and confusion, unwitting overcharge, etc) far more customers than those losing out, then it has to be accepted as a good move, in the event of this exercise being required to be revenue neutral. By the very nature of this forum, a larger proportion than the general public will end up losers from such an exercise, but the whole public transport system cannot pander to the needs of a small minority in society. That is however a rather idealistic way of looking at things.

You simply can't eliminate split-ticketing with the existence of differential pricing, but the phenomenon (and need) can be reduced in walk-on fares by a more coordinated approach controlled more centrally, as Scotland has shown, but questions must be asked as to the willingness of the current government to do that, in pursuit of their own ideological values.

I can only say that I see the good intentions behind, but as with most such proposals in the past, I will believe it when I see the end product. There are lots of conflicts in interest that will need resolving without government intervention.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I don't agree this has 'caused the split ticketing issue;, but if the suggestion is that split ticketing could have been reduced by collussion, ie. the likes of XC demanding intermediate fares are higher, then the fact that the lower priced fares have not been allowed to rise is an excellent reason to demonstrate why those protections need to be preserved.

But how could anyone ever stop split ticketing in the case of a journey like Reading to Manchester at around 9am? The only way to stop people splitting for that journey, would be for XC to reverse their decision to make the Off Peak fare not valid until 0930, but XC are not prepared to do that.

Collusion is not the answer and its also illegal - but nowhere in Competition Law does the provision exist for one party to set another party's fares without any form of agreement whatsoever. The joint/interavailable fare setting process in the TSA pre-dates the 1998 Competition Act and has been rendered completely unbalanced by it - so joint fares either need to be commercially agreed where this is legal, or organised so that they are specified in contracts.
As regards the second point, if we were to move to a situation where external drivers of split ticketing (e.g. where either regulation or another operator creates an anomalous fare valid on a TOC's trains) then you are right that the only remaining driver of split ticketing is where a company wilfully creates a fares structure that can be undermined by other fares they have set - in which case 1) it is in their control and 2) quite frankly if consumers exploit it good luck to them.
I suspect the only area in which our views seem to fundamentally differ is whether the current situation is the result of a massive conspiracy between the rail industry and train operators; or is in fact caused by a pile of dated, contradictory and unworkable regulations imposed by various layers of government that have resulted in perverse outcomes - with a healthy dose of cock-ups (by operators - I freely acknowledge) in the mix.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I don't really see how they can stop splitting, bar making journeys Oyster-like, and you have to tap in and out. But that brings new problems with it instead. We (as a family of five) are holidaying in Cornwall at Easter, having just booked the journey, it was near on half the price splitting it into 7 journeys! If they stopped that, we simply would not go by train. So the question the TOCs have to ask themselves is, is it worth people saving the money and them getting something, or is it worth pricing themselves out of it and getting nothing.
Much the same argument for Northern really. Is it worth striking to save guard jobs, but as a result turning away passengers and loosing everyones jobs instead as passengers flee. We have not travelled on a northern train since the summer when the strike let us down badly. We aren't the only ones.
If XC price us off the trains, it is not just them that suffer, we use the train less overall too. The Northern strike has drastically reduced our train ticket spending. This time last year, as a family, we were spending £100 a week on train travel. This year, we don't even spend that a month now. It is costing the rail industry money, and raising prices (indirectly by banning splits) will do more harm.

 

[yorkie]

Collusion is not the answer and its also illegal - but nowhere in Competition Law does the provision exist for one party to set another party's fares without any form of agreement whatsoever. The joint/interavailable fare setting process in the TSA pre-dates the 1998 Competition Act and has been rendered completely unbalanced by it - so joint fares either need to be commercially agreed where this is legal, or organised so that they are specified in contracts.

The existing structure limits the extent to which overpriced and unreasonably expensive TOCs such as CrossCountry can dictate the price of shorter distance journeys. I am concerned if there is any suggestion that the likes of XC can have more say in the price of shorter distance journeys. Any attempts to make the price of such journeys increase to match the level set by XC would be damaging for rail, and encourage people to switch to road transport.

As regards the second point, if we were to move to a situation where external drivers of split ticketing (e.g. where either regulation or another operator creates an anomalous fare valid on a TOC's trains) then you are right that the only remaining driver of split ticketing is where a company wilfully creates a fares structure that can be undermined by other fares they have set - in which case 1) it is in their control and 2) quite frankly if consumers exploit it good luck to them.
I suspect the only area in which our views seem to fundamentally differ is whether the current situation is the result of a massive conspiracy between the rail industry and train operators; or is in fact caused by a pile of dated, contradictory and unworkable regulations imposed by various layers of government that have resulted in perverse outcomes - with a healthy dose of cock-ups (by operators - I freely acknowledge) in the mix.

Most of the split ticketing opportunities that exist now are due to the actions of train companies who aim to charge a much higher price than BR did. It is not BR who are responsible for the 'anomalies' by and large but the likes of TPE, XC and others who have distorted the market by raising fares that they set to a level that is well above fares set by other operators (yet still valid on the more expensive TOC).

However train companies like TPE, XC etc don't accept they are to blame, even though it's obvious.

 

[BigCj34]

I am not prepared to pay more for a fare for the perceived greater good, if there is already a cheap split ticket combination. I'm not saying this out of selfishness, as I invite any potential rail user to check out the excellent Trainsplit website, which is now actively promoted by the Money Saving Expert. Indeed fares should be simpler, but if there are no cast iron guarantees I will pay the same for a through ticket as I would with split tickets then I am not interested. If the prices I would normally pay go up then I would explore other transport options, fares are expensive enough and without the split ticket combination that journey would not have been made/.

The notion that such reforms such be 'revenue neutral' is a significant limitation to the ambition of a reform. The railway already has the one of the highest, if not the highest, ratios of fare box revenue to government expenditure in Europe so there ought to be sufficient taxpayers money allocated to successfully implement reforms that don't penalise split ticket users. If anything the increased patronage may make the reforms revenue neutral anyway!

 

[yorkie]

..., it was near on half the price splitting it into 7 journeys!...

It's still one journey! This is an important distinction as it would affect your rights if it wasn't.

If they stopped that, we simply would not go by train

Some train companies would prefer that, as their trains are at capacity.

So the question the TOCs have to ask themselves is, is it worth people saving the money and them getting something, or is it worth pricing themselves out of it and getting nothing.

They know they can raise prices so high that many people will be lost to rail, but there will be enough people who have no other choice, all paying extortionate sums, so they still meet revenue targets.

If XC price us off the trains, it is not just them that suffer, we use the train less overall too. The Northern strike has drastically reduced our train ticket spending. This time last year, as a family, we were spending £100 a week on train travel. This year, we don't even spend that a month now. It is costing the rail industry money, and raising prices (indirectly by banning splits) will do more harm.

I agree but the train companies don't see it that way. They also do not mind if the overall rail market or the reputation of rail is damaged.

 

[yorkie]

... Indeed fares should be simpler...

That means more expensive. Also the simpler you make them, the more split ticketing opportunities you create!

but if there are no cast iron guarantees I will pay the same for a through ticket as I would with split tickets then I am not interested. If the prices I would normally pay go up then I would explore other transport options, fares are expensive enough and without the split ticket combination that journey would not have been made

Split ticket websites grow the rail market. Hopefully the Government will see that. However certain greedy train companies just consider the "lost" revenue without considering how much they have gaoined by people who would otherwise have used a different transport mode.

The notion that such reforms such be 'revenue neutral' is a significant limitation to the ambition of a reform. The railway already has the one of the highest, if not the highest, ratios of fare box revenue to government expenditure in Europe so there ought to be sufficient taxpayers money allocated to successfully implement reforms that don't penalise split ticket users. If anything the increased patronage may make the reforms revenue neutral anyway!

Revenue neutral is politically impossible as it's about reducing the headline "Anytime" fares which only a few people on business expenses pay. Everyone else then has to pay higher fares to cover the shortfall at the top end of the market. It's a bonkers idea.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

How would the RDG's scheme stop local authorities subsidising fares within their county that mean, for example, splitting tickets at boundary stations between South and West Yorkshire often works out cheaper than a through fare?

 

[BigCj34]

That means more expensive. Also the simpler you make them, the more split ticketing opportunities you create!

Split ticket websites grow the rail market. Hopefully the Government will see that. However certain greedy train companies just consider the "lost" revenue without considering how much they have gaoined by people who would otherwise have used a different transport mode.

Revenue neutral is politically impossible as it's about reducing the headline "Anytime" fares which only a few people on business expenses pay. Everyone else then has to pay higher fares to cover the shortfall at the top end of the market. It's a bonkers idea.

In the sense that ideally, we shouldn't need to split ticket but rather spend the same amount on a through ticket. Of course we don't live in ideal circumstances.

As a left of centre proposal, I wonder if a way to 'merge' split tickets into one through ticket could be implemented? Clearly it would effectively require the generation of a custom ticket with a non-standard fare printed as the price, but could alleviate the need to carry multiple tickets, and would benefit those who show the ticket on their smartphone. It would probably have to be sold as an advance ticket, fixed to a certain itinerary.