RDG plans to stop split ticketing

[Tetchytyke]

Look at shoulder peaks for example, many of the crowded trains are off peak nominally so a bit of a fare rise would not be out of place here.

That's looking at it the wrong way around.

The first off-peak trains are so busy because of the huge discrepancy between the peak and off peak fares. The sensible solution is to shorten the peak period, not charge more to off peak passengers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It just requires better regulatory effort to ensure that customers are not being sold Advances at a higher price than the cheapest walk-ons with corresponding loss of flexibility.

When a state-owned operator is deliberately preventing holders of off peak tickets from reserving seats on trains, instead only allowing reservations for advance ticket holders, I doubt this will happen any time soon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's looking at it the wrong way around.

The first off-peak trains are so busy because of the huge discrepancy between the peak and off peak fares. The sensible solution is to shorten the peak period, not charge more to off peak passengers.

I can't agree, other than the VTWC Friday evening thing which is a *bit* different. There will still be the cliff - and if you shorten the evening peak the cliff may well be steeper as business travellers find off-peak is OK to wait half an hour for.

There are two ways to smooth the cliff, and using both is probably sensible. One is two-step off-peak fares (i.e. Off Peak and Super Off Peak), which the TOCs all seem to be moving to. The other is to release significant numbers of Advances that are close to, but slightly more than, half of the (Super) Off Peak Single just before each "cliff".

 

[Bletchleyite]

When a state-owned operator is deliberately preventing holders of off peak tickets from reserving seats on trains, instead only allowing reservations for advance ticket holders, I doubt this will happen any time soon.

Which TOC is doing that? The only TOC I heard of doing something similar was ATW, which was owned by a Government (just not ours), but it was the opposite way round - reservations on walk-ups only.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which TOC is doing that?

LNER.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can't agree, other than the VTWC Friday evening thing which is a *bit* different. There will still be the cliff - and if you shorten the evening peak the cliff may well be steeper as business travellers find off-peak is OK to wait half an hour for.

It depends on the market. On outer-urban commuter trains, yes, whenever the first off peak train is it will be rammed.

But on longer distance trains, less so. Take departures out of Kings Cross. The weekday super off peak starts at 1900. The 1900 is the last train to stations north of Newcastle. It is *rammed*. The 2000 is the last train that connects into last buses from Darlington and Newcastle. It is also rammed. The 1930 stops everywhere and is rammed.

It's slightly better on a Friday (although yes, the 1819 and 1830 are very busy on Fridays) but at least the pain gets spread across more trains.

The 1903 Plymouth has the same issue for the same reason, much as Reading commuters cop the flack.

 

[Esker-pades]

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.

In what sense? I've always found splitting at Glasgow (when doing Edinburgh through Glasgow to the West journeys) and at Inverness (when doing Edinburgh to North Highland journeys) more economical. Exact fares shown as a spoiler.

Spoiler

Edinburgh to stations beyond Glasgow (Ayr, Paisley Canal, Wemyss Bay etc.) are more expensive than splitting at Glasgow in my experience.
£19.60 Edinburgh to Paisley Canal (off peak day return) or £13.30 and £4.00 (£17.30 total) splitting at Glasgow. All prices are for Off Peak Day Return with no railcard.

I also find splitting at Inverness when going from Edinburgh to the North Highland Lines more economical. For example, the Edinburgh to Stromeferry advance was £21.80 (with railcard), but splitting at Inverness got me £11.85 + £7.55 . I've had more dramatic savings when booking 2 months in advance when the Edinburgh to Inverness advances are much lower (£5 a pop).
The walk up single for Edinburgh to Stromeferry is £78.60, but splitting at Inverness gets £46.10 + £21.80 (£67.90). Those are all anytime singles (no other type of single available) for an adult (no railcard).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In what sense? I've always found splitting at Glasgow (when doing Edinburgh through Glasgow to the West journeys) and at Inverness (when doing Edinburgh to North Highland journeys) more economical. Exact fares shown as a spoiler.

Spoiler

Edinburgh to stations beyond Glasgow (Ayr, Paisley Canal, Wemyss Bay etc.) are more expensive than splitting at Glasgow in my experience.
£19.60 Edinburgh to Paisley Canal (off peak day return) or £13.30 and £4.00 (£17.30 total) splitting at Glasgow. All prices are for Off Peak Day Return with no railcard.

I also find splitting at Inverness when going from Edinburgh to the North Highland Lines more economical. For example, the Edinburgh to Stromeferry advance was £21.80 (with railcard), but splitting at Inverness got me £11.85 + £7.55 . I've had more dramatic savings when booking 2 months in advance when the Edinburgh to Inverness advances are much lower (£5 a pop).
The walk up single for Edinburgh to Stromeferry is £78.60, but splitting at Inverness gets £46.10 + £21.80 (£67.90). Those are all anytime singles (no other type of single available) for an adult (no railcard).

ScotRail have cut certain fares to try and eliminate splitting, but as you've shown, they still have a while further to go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER.

Really? Seems surprising, I never heard of that before.

 

[js1000]

RDG unhappy they can't rip passengers off anymore because they're smart enough to split tickets where savings can be made? And the railway companies wonder why their despised by the public judging by a recent Which survey. How about just offer the cheapest fare available in the first place as any other company with a modicum of decency would do?

 

[mailbyrail]

Many other business models are built on the same idea - namely to charge as many customers as much as they can get away with and at the same time justify their profits by saying there are cheaper rates available
Utility companies are well known for charging their highest rates to customers who don't switch frequently, insurance companies repay loyal renewal customers with the highest rates.
At least the regulators of some of these industries do try protect customers - even if too little too late - rather than the apparent objective of all the railway bodies seeming only to protect TOC interests

 

[bb21]

In what sense? I've always found splitting at Glasgow (when doing Edinburgh through Glasgow to the West journeys) and at Inverness (when doing Edinburgh to North Highland journeys) more economical. Exact fares shown as a spoiler.

In the sense that they have done some work at reducing their occurrence, but as I mentioned earlier, with differential pricing you cannot eliminate their existence from a network as complex as ours.

 

[geoffk]

Split ticketing is certainly not new, but advances in technology and better information systems have made it so much easier. In 1965 I had to get from Bristol to York and back in a day for a University interview. At that time, the furthest I could get with a Day Return was Birmingham New Street so I rebooked there, at Derby and again at Sheffield. I suppose it didn't occur to me to attempt to buy all the tickets at Temple Meads, but it probably wasn't possible then. How much money was saved by doing this and what it would be worth today I've no idea. I think I managed to buy the Derby ticket at New Street and get back on the same train in the seven minutes wait there but I certainly had to wait for another train at Derby and again at Sheffield, so a journey of around seven hours to York. Worth it? Certainly for a "poor student"!

 

[yorkie]

RDG unhappy they can't rip passengers off anymore because they're smart enough to split tickets where savings can be made?

It's not RDG themselves who are doing this as it is of course their member TOCs, but their argument goes that DfT demands that they increase revenue to levels that are not achievable without unfair fare rises; the TOCs affected then increase the fares they control. However savvy passengers can buy alternative fares (or combinations of fares) set by more reasonable operators that have not risen so much, to undercut the overpriced fares.

Those TOCs then get upset because their revenue is not as high as they predicted, and moan that it is unfair that people are able to use better value fares set by more reasonable operators or set by themselves but are subject to fares regulation.

CrossCountry think that anyone who asks for a return ticket from Reading to Manchester departing at 0915 should pay nearly £200 but the problem is that this is a ludicrous concept. Anyone who pays the going rate for that journey has either got more money than sense or is on business expenses. The idea that such a high fare can prevail and not be undercut by splitting is an absurd idea. The idea that a combination of tickets for such a journey could ever reach £200 is also absurd without incredible price rises of the sort never seen before.

CrossCountry would no doubt blame this £200 fare entirely at the hands of the DfT (except they may not say so publicly) but equally the DfT would no doubt say that it is up to XC how they raise their revenue to the levels they expect and that such decisions are not down to the DfT. RDG will say that it is down to DfT policy but DfT are hardly going to say "yes we asked XC to restrict their Off Peak Returns to be invalid before 0930" and they'd be correct that they didn't.

So it's all very convenient; each side can claim to be totally blameless.

But there is no solution that is acceptable to all sides. I know this because I have carefully considered all possible solutions and there quite simply isn't one. Anyone who claims to have a solution is welcome to post it, and I will then point out why at least one side will find it to be unacceptable.

So I propose no changes are made, and our right to use "split tickets" remains enshrined in the conditions of travel and I'd like to see an end to train companies attempting to deny us these rights (which we do currently have, whether they like it or not).

I am aware some people say that RDG are not lobbying to stop split tickets, but why is it there are so many articles suggesting otherwise? If the articles are wrong, please can someone explain what is actually happening behind the scenes, thanks

 

[yorkie]

As for what happened in Scotland, see:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13098598.1500-rail-fare-anomalies-ended-by-23m-grant/

Rail fares will be reduced by up to two-fifths on some journeys (41%) to tackle a decades-old anomaly that makes it cheaper to buy two tickets than a single fare, the Transport Minister has announced.

Over 1,500 "split ticketing" inconsistencies will end thanks to a £2.28 million grant from Transport Scotland.

It is said the move will ensure that end-to-end fares will be at least 50p cheaper than buying one ticket part of the way to a destination, and a second ticket to complete the journey.

Over a quarter of a million ScotRail journeys will be affected by the cut from May 19, around 0.3% of the 81 million journeys taken in Scotland last year.

As the Scotrail franchise finances had been designed with people paying the higher through fares in mind, there had to be a "grant" made available to reduce the through fares as otherwise the franchise would not be making the required amount of revenue due to the loss of people no longer paying unnecessarily higher fares.

Unfortunately they ran out of money before all the higher priced longer distance fares could be reduced to a lower price than the sum of shorter distance fares. As the Scotrail franchise was let with the assumption that people would be overpaying this means any remaining anomalies have been left to continue to exist, as it is important for Scotrail to continue to obtain the additional revenue from people who are unaware of "split ticketing" websites.

Also, in England the DfT has absolutely no plans for any such scheme to exist. The DfT has two options on the cards: one is to continue the status quo (which is better for savvy passengers and anyone who is simply aware of the existence of split ticketing websites, ie. most price conscious people) or alternatively they could attempt to end split ticketing in a "revenue neutral" way by increasing the price of the more reasonably priced fares (purchased by people making shorter distance journeys, or people aware of split ticketing websites) and decreasing the price of the more expensive fares (such as Manchester to London Anytime fares which are almost exclusively purchased by people on business expenses).

Obviously the vast majority will disbenefit if the DfT is successful in implementing the latter. Not only will it increase the price paid by ordinary people, it will also fail to completely eliminate loopholes and split ticketing. It is doomed to failure and will come at great cost. I am utterly opposed to this. I am aware that there are attempts to increase fares and I created this thread to pre-empt any decision and make sure people are aware of how dangerous the plans are and to ensure that people are informed that the plans are toxic and must be opposed.

I am well aware that each TOC will claim they are not behind any such proposals, the DfT will deny everything and RDG will say it's all down to DfT. My aim is not to "blame" any particular party but to expose the fact that such discussions are being held, toxic plans are being discussed and formulated, and they must be opposed.

There must be no attempts to end split ticketing unless an assurance is made that no fares whatsoever will rise, and the only changes will be REDUCTIONS to fares that I would argue are too high. If this is not practicable then the status quo must remain.

 

[sheff1]

Similar policies give us ultra-cheap fares where there is spare capacity, typically on well-equipped long-distance services.

So you might think, but XC routinely offer 'cheap' tickets for a journey commencing in 15 minutes time on a train which is already full and standing at the time the ticket is bought. They also provide a seat reservation with these tickets so that the purchaser can turf someone who is already on board out of their seat.

Northern do the same (only without a reservation) on imminent services which are almost certain to be full and standing.

These sort of cheap tickets encourage splitting to undercut the full price fare.

 

[geoffk]

So you might think, but XC routinely offer 'cheap' tickets for a journey commencing in 15 minutes time on a train which is already full and standing at the time the ticket is bought. They also provide a seat reservation with these tickets so that the purchaser can turf someone who is already on board out of their seat.

And the person being turfed out has almost certainly paid a (much) higher fare than the one with the 15 minute reservation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While LNR are almost as bad in terms of selling Advances on trains they know will be full and standing, there is something in common between the two mismanaged TOCs Northern and XC, both of whom are a particularly bad example of this. Can anyone think what it is?

 

[Mike@Raileasy]

Don't forget that split ticketing is also responsible for the breakdown in trust in the rail industry or so it is being spun. RDG research claims 66% of travellers felt they didn't get "value for money" on their last trip. Problem is Transport Focus' - who also instigated this fares consultation - own research says "better value for money is the top priority for improvement among all rail passengers. This is not all down to price – it is clear from previous research that judgements about value are influenced heavily by train punctuality and the ability to get a seat – although the cost of tickets clearly matters as well". Among the general public, as opposed to the experts on this forum, there is a clearly a difference between the "value for money" traveller and people who are "purely price conscious" whom I'd say are the kind of people who seek out split savings. So I doubt the way this stat is being used. It's fairly obvious really, lots of people realise they might not be on the best deal for a whole range of products/services they consume but that doesn't mean they think all the cheaper deals should be removed from the market.

 

[BigCj34]

While LNR are almost as bad in terms of selling Advances on trains they know will be full and standing, there is something in common between the two mismanaged TOCs Northern and XC, both of whom are a particularly bad example of this. Can anyone think what it is?

Their German overlords believe a train packed to the rafters is 'efficiency'?

 

[BigCj34]

Don't forget that split ticketing is also responsible for the breakdown in trust in the rail industry or so it is being spun. RDG research claims 66% of travellers felt they didn't get "value for money" on their last trip. Problem is Transport Focus' - who also instigated this fares consultation - own research says "better value for money is the top priority for improvement among all rail passengers. This is not all down to price – it is clear from previous research that judgements about value are influenced heavily by train punctuality and the ability to get a seat – although the cost of tickets clearly matters as well". Among the general public, as opposed to the experts on this forum, there is a clearly a difference between the "value for money" traveller and people who are "purely price conscious" whom I'd say are the kind of people who seek out split savings. So I doubt the way this stat is being used. It's fairly obvious really, lots of people realise they might not be on the best deal for a whole range of products/services they consume but that doesn't mean they think all the cheaper deals should be removed from the market.

If I was purely price conscious I'd get the Megabus but it could take twice as long, so it's not better value. A cheapet split ticket for the exact same journey is better value for money; as one is paying less for the same experience.