Really simple fares

[Nicholas43]

(See post #20 for a Mark 2, modified in the light of much just criticism.)
Every couple of years, as I recall, ATOC announces that fares will be simplified. They then get even more complicated.
For example, I have the choice of bus or train Oxford to London. FGW will only sell me a competitively-priced ticket if I commit to a specific train. I therefore usually get the bus. Last week I went to Lapworth. I bought an off-peak return, and remembered too late that 'off-peak' now means one month, and I could have saved several pounds by buying day returns with suitable split(s).

So here are some modest proposals to really simplify fares, while maintaining or increasing revenue.

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.
2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return, or cheaper if the train company so wishes.
3. No return fares.
4. No advance fares.
5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year).
6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Railways silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want.
6a. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).
7. Replace season tickets by carnets of single tickets, initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a commercially justifiable discount.
8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of carnet tickets. This exemption to be phased out, in time.
My justification for these last two suggestions is that historically season tickets were used eg by the Southern Railway to encourage people to settle eg in Woking and thus increase profits. Now they are just subsidies from the transport budget to (a) house developers - who can sell expensive 'executive homes' in leafy suburbs, and (b) employers - who can pay low(ish) wages in areas where no-one can afford a tiny flat.

 

[Lampshade]

You think that would be simple?

 

[Intermodal]

So here are some modest proposals to really simplify fares, while maintaining or increasing revenue.

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.

Passengers are not interested in who is charging, they want to be able to buy a ticket to a place instead of 3-5 tickets for a long distance journey e.g. London to Inverness.

2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return, or cheaper if the train company so wishes.
3. No return fares.
4. No advance fares.
5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year).

Buying return fares is simple and advance tickets offer good value for money. Having a different price for each service would imo make it more complicated and even harder to understand, especially if you cannot use a computer to look up these fares. You would need a book of fares to be able to decide what service you actually want to travel on.

6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Trains silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want.

So you are proposing we go back to a first, second and third class system? I don't think this is especially simplifying things, if anything again making it more complicated.

6. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).

What is your justification for proposing we make something that is free and easy to do cost £5?

7. Replace season tickets by carnets of single tickets, initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a commercially justifiable discount.

So a passenger would have literally hundreds of single tickets and would lose flexibility on that fact they can travel at any time on the route? Somehow don't think that is simpler.

8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of carnet tickets. This exemption to be phased out, in time.
My justification for these last two suggestions is that historically season tickets were used eg by the Southern Railway to encourage people to settle eg in Woking and thus increase profits. Now they are just subsidies from the transport budget to (a) house developers - who can sell expensive 'executive homes' in leafy suburbs, and (b) employers - who can pay low(ish) wages in areas where no-one can afford a tiny flat.

Again devaluing season tickets and making them more complicated in that you cannot travel on any train at any time.

I really do not think these changes are well thought out.

 

[dzug2]

while maintaining or increasing revenue.

Would you care to justify that assertion? It's by no means self evident.

 

[Greenback]

So here are some modest proposals to really simplify fares, while maintaining or increasing revenue.

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.

There might be transparency for passengers, though even that is arguable, but one thing is certain - very few will welcome the loss of interavailability that is implied by not having revenue sharing.

2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return, or cheaper if the train company so wishes.

Which is the relvant train company between Bridgend and Cardiff?

3. No return fares.

That would be OK if the singles were no more than half the return. But who would oversee this? Which return fare would be the benchmark?

4. No advance fares.

I'm not against this, but plenty of other people are!

5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year).

I thought this was meant to simplify things? Going back to Bridgend to Cardiff, then if ATW is the relevant TOC tos et the fares, is it only them that would be allowed to set the supplement? Would that also apply to FGW or just their own trains? If not FGW, then wouldn;t everyone catch those trains?

6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Trains silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want.

Again, further unnecessary complication.

6. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).

Why? Would this be compulsory, or might soem TOC's be able to opt out if they wish?

7. Replace season tickets by carnets of single tickets, initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a commercially justifiable discount.

Again, why? And what do you define as substantial and comemrcially justifiable, particularly given the variations in discounts we have now?

8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of carnet tickets. This exemption to be phased out, in time.

It looks as if commuters face further massive price increase under your plans? Might I ask if you are a season ticket holder yourself?

My justification for these last two suggestions is that historically season tickets were used eg by the Southern Railway to encourage people to settle eg in Woking and thus increase profits. Now they are just subsidies from the transport budget to (a) house developers - who can sell expensive 'executive homes' in leafy suburbs, and (b) employers - who can pay low(ish) wages in areas where no-one can afford a tiny flat.

I believe that season ticket holders get a very good deal. But there is no reason for them to be facing any higher rises than they already are.

I think you need to look at your ideas again.

 

[telstarbox]

There's nothing complicated about Advance fares - they have the same restrictions as budget airline tickets and people are fine with those. Advances also help to spread out demand onto quieter trains as they provide an incentive to travel outside peak times.

 

[Greenback]

Passengers are not interested in who is charging, they want to be able to buy a ticket to a place instead of 3-5 tickets for a long distance journey e.g. London to Inverness.Buying return fares is simple and advance tickets offer good value for money. Having a different price for each service would imo make it more complicated and even harder to understand, especially if you cannot use a computer to look up these fares. You would need a book of fares to be able to decide what service you actually want to travel on.
So you are proposing we go back to a first, second and third class system? I don't think this is especially simplifying things, if anything again making it more complicated.
What is your justification for proposing we make something that is free and easy to do cost £5?
So a passenger would have literally hundreds of single tickets and would lose flexibility on that fact they can travel at any time on the route? Somehow don't think that is simpler.

Again devaluing season tickets and making them more complicated in that you cannot travel on any train at any time.

I really do not think these changes are well thought out.

You have put it better than I did!

Would you care to justify that assertion? It's by no means self evident.

Agreed!

 

[mallard]

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.

No. Passengers want through tickets. They also like to be able to catch whichever train is going in the right direction, rather than being tied to an operator. On routes where there is a minority operator, they would likely sell very few tickets and may well cut the service. On routes which are shared 50/50 between operators (or close to it) then it's just unworkable.

You basically force passengers to plan their journeys in advance, but with (4) below, you remove the financial incentive for them to do so.

2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return, or cheaper if the train company so wishes.
3. No return fares.
4. No advance fares.

So, the minority on most routes (single fare holders) benefit from much cheaper tickets, while the rest suffer? Note that the majority of routes don't even have an "off-peak day return" currently!

Advance fares are a good way of filling up otherwise empty seats off-peak. Selling a "seat" cheaply is better than not selling it at all.

5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year).

When are these "supplements" collected? Collection on the train is impractical, precisely for the reason that the supplement exists - the train is full! Collection beforehand is basically forcing people to book in advance, with none of the benefits.

6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Trains silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want.

So a "weekend first" model all week then? Probably the most practical of all your suggestions, but hardly needed really.

6. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).

Why? So you can charge even more money to your passengers? Your already forcing them to book in advance without a cheaper fare and now you want to charge them for the last advantage of booking early!

7. Replace season tickets by carnets of single tickets, initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a commercially justifiable discount.
8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of carnet tickets. This exemption to be phased out, in time.

So, give people hundreds of individual tickets and effectively increase the price (How many singles does a weekly season equate to? 10? 14? Currently, it's unlimited.), then massively increase the price while forcing passengers to choose their train in advance, removing half the point of a season!

My justification for these last two suggestions is that historically season tickets were used eg by the Southern Railway to encourage people to settle eg in Woking and thus increase profits. Now they are just subsidies from the transport budget to (a) house developers - who can sell expensive 'executive homes' in leafy suburbs, and (b) employers - who can pay low(ish) wages in areas where no-one can afford a tiny flat.

These plans will only increase house prices in cities (massively!) and have a knock-on effect for prices for everything else (not just in the cities) as wages are forced up. Taxes will also increase, to cover the increased wage bills for doctors, teachers, civil servants, etc. Basically, you'd just cause huge inflation!

These ideas are completely unworkable!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.

Transparency maybe, but higher fares definately!

Imagine the trouble getting a fare from Portsmouth to Birmingham for someone who has no-idea what route to take or what trains to catch!

A map to help you - http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passenger_services/maps/nationalrailoperatorsmap.pdf

2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return, or cheaper if the train company so wishes.

I would suggest a minimum of two fares, peak and off-peak (people seem to manage with them on buses and trams!)

3. No return fares.

The problem here (and I speak from experience) is that not everybody knows when they are coming back, some have a rough idea, but no fixed plans. They would still like to have a ticket for the return journey before they set off though. To say singles only would not only inconvenience them (as they will probably end up queuing for tickets twice!) but also everyone else who has to wait while they sort their fare out.

4. No advance fares.

Three words....Never gonna happen!

The advance fares are what attract occasional users to the railway, even if they don't end up getting those fares.

5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year).

Why not just have a peak time fare?

6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Trains silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want.

Why not just have first class fares?

6. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).

Seriously? There is a reason train companies abandoned reservation fees. (also, this should be 7.)

7. Replace season tickets by carnets of single tickets, initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a commercially justifiable discount.

Unless the aim is to increase revenue by making sure passengers get less for their money. I'm not sure what benefit there is here, it certainly isn't simpler?

8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of carnet tickets. This exemption to be phased out, in time.

So you are charging more for the same commuter journey in the long run? peak time passengers will not be happy! Although, off-peak commuters might prefer it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Every couple of years, as I recall, ATOC announces that fares will be simplified. They then get even more complicated.

They've done it once. You must be imagining things...

 

[blakey1152]

There's nothing complicated about Advance fares - they have the same restrictions as budget airline tickets and people are fine with those. Advances also help to spread out demand onto quieter trains as they provide an incentive to travel outside peak times.

Not only that, Advanced tickets avoid the confusion of "Is my ticket valid on this train or not?" as its only valid on one train at one particular time...making things very easy!

 

[lemonic]

Yes, I would say that Advance and Anytime tickets are very simple. It is Off Peak (and Super Off Peak) tickets that can be very complicated with many varying restrictions. However, just because the tickets themselves are potentially simple, finding the cheapest ticket for your journey is often far from simple!

 

[WestCoast]

1. Require separate tickets for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. Huge savings from no more accountants doing clearing-house and Orcats games. Transparency for the passenger on who is charging what for what.

That sounds horrific! I regularly travel on a 1h20 minutes journey that involves three operators (TPE, Northern and Virgin) - I'd have to pay separately, causing me hassle and and that will no doubt increase the cost of the ticket! :roll:

Plus, what happens when a route has more than one TOC operating on it? I'd still like a ticket I can use on all of them!

We need MORE integration (not less!), the system is already fragmented enough!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

6. Charge for seat reservations (say £5).

Not a bad idea (not that many on here will agree, because they aren't used to that system). DB do this for long-distance services (reservations aren't possible on other trains) and there is logic behind charging, because it ensures that people only reserve a seat if they are going to use it. Of course, it helps if the fares are lower overall and the charge is only small. How many times have you seen a reserved seat which is not being used? Off-peak/Anytime and season ticket holders are tempted just to reserve one 'for the sake of it'.

I personally prefer it to be free, although there are some advantages to charging for it as per the DB model.

 

[Greenback]

Not a bad idea (not that many on here will agree, because they aren't used to that system). DB do this for long-distance services (reservations aren't possible on other trains) and there is logic behind charging, because it ensures that people only reserve a seat if they are going to use it. Of course, it helps if the fares are lower overall and the charge is only small. How many times have you seen a reserved seat which is not being used?

On the face of it, it seems like a reasonable idea. However, in the context of the other proposals, such as removing Advance fares, what it actually means is that there is absolutely no incentive to book a journey in advance.

Those who want to ensure they have a seat will have to pay a lot more, which, in comparison with what they may be paying now, will undoubtedly dissuade many from using the train at all.

 

[WestCoast]

On the face of it, it seems like a reasonable idea. However, in the context of the other proposals, such as removing Advance fares, what it actually means is that there is absolutely no incentive to book a journey in advance.

Those who want to ensure they have a seat will have to pay a lot more, which, in comparison with what they may be paying now, will undoubtedly dissuade many from using the train at all.

Yes, I'd agree there. I think the UK needs airline-style yield management through the offering of Advance fares to simply manage capacity and revenue. If we went for the Dutch system, where there is basically two core fares - single and day/weekend return, there would be major capacity issues at peak times and occasional traveller would be turned away.

I'd resist any further 'simplification' on the Dft's terms as well, simply because it's just going to be another excuse to whack the fares up. Although, you do have to admit that UK fares are a bit out of control. Whoever mentioned the off-peak restrictions was correct! It's bizarre: "off-peak, off-peak day return, super off-peak, super-duper off-peak" all with varying conditions as per the route/TOC.

 

[Zoe]

You could scrap Off Peak and Super Off Peak and just keep Anytime for people that want flexibility. More advance fares could be made available to replace the Off Peak and Super Off Peak fares possibly available right up until two hours before the train leaves its origin station. I'd prefer that they didn't go down this route but it's an option.

 

[Greenback]

It's an option that I would not be supportive of either.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The problem you have there is that the booking deadline becomes very fluid, travelling from Preston to Glasgow, advance fares on TPE could be sold as late as 2 1/2 hours before travel, for Virgin Trains bookings would close 4 or 5 hours before travel. People getting the same Virgin train at Milton Keynes would have a dealine of 2 1/2 hours or so.

It creates a lot more uncertainty than currently exists.

 

[yorkie]

This system sounds extremely complicated and unworkable, sorry.

The ticketing system is complex to get best value out of, but the concept to the customer is simple (though not cheap): you can turn up at any station and get a a ticket to almost any other station with the ability to take a wide range of routes (usually) and not have to worry about the operating company, or supplements.

Passengers hate supplements and any other hidden charges. GC tried supplements and realised their mistake within weeks.

 

[Nicholas43]

Thanks for many good points. In response, here's a Mark 2.

0. At present, I perceive train fares as expensive, unless I both travel off-peak and commit myself to a specific train. However, often, it does not matter to the train company which of several off-peak trains I travel on. I (and I suggest others) would find it more attractive if there were simple basic fares, and supplements for travelling at peak times, or in enhanced comfort. The intent would be that the basic fares extract as much revenue as advance and off-peak fares do now, and the supplements extract revenue similar to present Anytime fares.
1. Show transparent pricing for each leg of a journey that will use different train companies. In the instructive example of Portsmouth to Birmingham, the passenger could compare the basic fares and comfort of Cross-country Winchester to New Street, Virgin Euston to New Street, and Chiltern Marylebone to Moor Street or Snow Hill (plus South West bits) (and yes I know that weirder routes are permitted).
2. Relevant train company to set one and only one single fare between each pair of stations, at about half the present off-peak day return (or succession of split off-peak day returns), or cheaper if the train company so wishes. Ticket to be usable on all companies that operate between these stations. In the instructive example of Bridgend-Cardiff, Arriva would set the fares, and FGW would receive about 1/3 of the revenue. 1 and 2 together could reduce the number of accountants doing Orcats games.
3. No return fares. But you can buy an undated single back, and date it yourself when you decide to travel.
4. No advance fares. The intent is that the basic fare is as cheap as many advance fares are now, excluding the (usually very limited) super-bargains.
5. Relevant train company may also set a 'congestion supplement' between any pair of stations on any train they expect to be congested between those stations. For each train, they can set these supplements at any level they think the market will bear, but the supplements must be clearly shown in timetables, and revised not too often (eg twice a year). When practicable, supplement can be paid on train. Otherwise, paid in advance, or on leaving the train. For example, Oxford-London the timetable would show 'green' trains with no supplement, 'white' trains with (say) £10 supplement, and 'red' trains with (say) £20 supplement. This would be simpler, on many routes, than the present off-peak, super-offpeak, shoulder, superduper off-peak, offpeak but not on Fridays ...
6. Relevant train company to set a 'superior class' supplement on trains which have areas with better seating (on the model of Chiltern Railways silver class). Virgin can set this at eg £150 London-Manchester if they want. As rightly commented, this would work like an extension of 'Weekend First'.
6a. Charge for seat reservations (say £5), because there is a real cost in operating a seat reservation system, and the present 'free' reservations encourage people to make reservations they do not in the event use.
7. Replace season tickets by smart cards on which many single journeys can be stored. Initially at a substantial discount, reducing in time to a discount related to the train companies' costs.
8. Initially, exemption from the congestion charge for holders of such smart cards. This exemption to be phased out, in time.
The (admittedly highly controversial) justification for 7 and 8 is that there is no reason for the train companies to subsidise people travelling at peak times, just because they do it most days. If (which I doubt) our considered view is that the state should encourage lots of people to work in big cities and commute to work, then the state should subsidise their wages to enable them to afford to travel, not require the train companies to carry them artificially cheaply.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Thanks for many good points. In response, here's a Mark 2....

You have to understand what people want.

Train companies want profit, if there is no profit there is no point in providing the service. Fares need to be expensive enough to create profits, but cheap enough to keep existing customers and fill the remaining seats.

Joe Public wants unrestricted, simple, and, most importantly, cheap fares on clean, efficient, spacious trains.

If you restrict the fares system to a single level of fare (not cheap), with a myriad of supplements for various scenarios (not simple), it will not encourage growth (and hence not increase profits). No one wins.

People may not want to admit it, but what we currently have is a lot closer to what they want than most of the suggestions of replacements that I have seen.

Yes, the current system could be better, but I doubt your grass is any greener.

 

[Greenback]

HHF is correct. The proposals are not simpler, and they are not better. The proposals for transparency will do nothing but put people off rail travel due to the loss of flexibility and through ticketing.

With regard to making ticketing simpler, it simply doesn't work. Perhaps the OP would like to explain how a trip to Newcastle from Swansea could be simpler compared to buying an Advance ticket all the way through, as now? How many sections or legs would I have to buy tickets for, and how much would it cost?

 

[Nicholas43]

Perhaps the OP would like to explain how a trip to Newcastle from Swansea could be simpler compared to buying an Advance ticket all the way through, as now?

Because my first shot got it wrong, I haven't made it properly clear that I agree I should be able to buy one ticket A to B.
I'll take your Newcastle to Swansea challenge.

At present, if I use a trainline booking engine, I just get offered Cross Country's topwhack Advance, at £65.50, with changes at Birmingham New Street and Bristol Parkway. Personally, I hate changing at Birmingham New Street. With a lot more research, I can get the same fare on a slower Cross Country train through from Newcastle to Bristol. By using Network Rail's Fare Finder, I can discover the slow scenic route via Manchester and Ludlow, for which Arriva charges £39. Personally (though I accept I may be in a tiny minority) I'd rather travel that route. With even more research, I find East Coast Advance to Kings Cross at £15, and FGW Advance Paddington to Swansea at £12.50. As far as I can discover, none of the booking engines offer me those. I might prefer to travel via London (even though, currently, it involves buying two tickets and having an interesting discussion with the FGW ticket inspector if I get delayed into Kings Cross and miss my booked FGW train).

My suggestion is that it doesn't matter much to (for example) Cross Country which of several off-peak trains I take: the main reason they want to sell me an advance ticket is that they keep a greater share of the price.
On my proposal, if I entered Newcastle to Swansea into a booking engine, or went to a ticket office, I'd get offered Cross-Country's 'basic' fare of (say) £65 (preferably with an explanation of the Birmingham dilemma), Arriva's basic fare of (say) £40, and an East Coast - FGW option at basic fares of (say) £25 + £20. Once I'd bought, I'd be committed to my chosen route, but could get a refund less an admin charge. I'd also be told the supplement(s) for upgrading to peak trains on the day, and for sitting in first class, both of which might be large. But if I did unexpectedly need to travel earlier on the day (for example) I wouldn't be told my pre-bought ticket was worthless and I'd have to buy an Anytime Single at £139, which was then divvied up between about 9 train companies according to a passenger survey in 1993, or something.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....But if I did unexpectedly need to travel earlier on the day (for example) I wouldn't be told my pre-bought ticket was worthless and ....

Currently, if you turn up early, you can excess the advance fare (with an admin fee of £10) to the cheapest available fare for travel before the departure time of the first booked train (at the ticket office if there is one).

It is only worth nothing if you miss your train or decide not to bother changing it before the first booked train departs.

 

[Nicholas43]

Currently, if you turn up early, you can excess the advance fare (with an admin fee of £10) to the cheapest available fare for travel before the departure time of the first booked train (at the ticket office if there is one).

With the exception of e-tickets. And how many passengers know about it?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

How many bother to ask?

Clerks are supposed to give out that information when they sell the ticket

 

[cuccir]

What's certainly true is that, whilst capacity of the network is limited, it's hard to imagine systems that would both be simpler and, as a minimum, maintain current levels of value/flexibility for both passengers and TOCs.

To my mind, the four biggest 'problems' with ticketing which need solving are:

1. TOC-specific tickets should qualify for excesses, perhaps with a % admin fee - and it should be a %, not a set figure - on top to allow TOCs to recoup the lost revenue that they would suffer from people buying TOC-specific tickets and then hoping that they are not checked

2. Some level of simplification as to what counts as peak/off-peak/'super off-peak' - not total standardization, but definitely a smaller range of variation

3. Some sort of national railcard, in the style of the German or Swiss cards, even if the cost is initially very high, available to all travellers

4. Making period returns available for all journeys, even if the period is shorter for short distance journeys than it is for long distance ones

 

[Deerfold]

To my mind, the four biggest 'problems' with ticketing which need solving are:

1. TOC-specific tickets should qualify for excesses, perhaps with a % admin fee - and it should be a %, not a set figure - on top to allow TOCs to recoup the lost revenue that they would suffer from people buying TOC-specific tickets and then hoping that they are not checked

2. Some level of simplification as to what counts as peak/off-peak/'super off-peak' - not total standardization, but definitely a smaller range of variation

3. Some sort of national railcard, in the style of the German or Swiss cards, even if the cost is initially very high, available to all travellers

4. Making period returns available for all journeys, even if the period is shorter for short distance journeys than it is for long distance ones

Sounds like a good list. I used to travel to Oxford from London occasionally and the coaches got my business largely due to their "today and tomorrow" return

 

[Greenback]

Because my first shot got it wrong, I haven't made it properly clear that I agree I should be able to buy one ticket A to B.
I'll take your Newcastle to Swansea challenge.

OK!

At present, if I use a trainline booking engine, I just get offered Cross Country's topwhack Advance, at £65.50, with changes at Birmingham New Street and Bristol Parkway. Personally, I hate changing at Birmingham New Street. With a lot more research, I can get the same fare on a slower Cross Country train through from Newcastle to Bristol. By using Network Rail's Fare Finder, I can discover the slow scenic route via Manchester and Ludlow, for which Arriva charges £39. Personally (though I accept I may be in a tiny minority) I'd rather travel that route.

You're not alone, I also prefer that journey!

With even more research, I find East Coast Advance to Kings Cross at £15, and FGW Advance Paddington to Swansea at £12.50. As far as I can discover, none of the booking engines offer me those.

Correct, booking engines only show through tickets. The number of possible splits and routeings that may turn out cheaper makes it unfeasible to do anything else. Particularly as it would complicate the whole process,w hich is not the objective here.

I might prefer to travel via London (even though, currently, it involves buying two tickets and having an interesting discussion with the FGW ticket inspector if I get delayed into Kings Cross and miss my booked FGW train).

You are covered. Following clarification of this issue by ATOC, you should not have any discussion.

My suggestion is that it doesn't matter much to (for example) Cross Country which of several off-peak trains I take: the main reason they want to sell me an advance ticket is that they keep a greater share of the price.

Yes, that is one of the attractions of Advance tickets for TOC's - but they also like them because of the yield management possibilities Advances offer.

On my proposal, if I entered Newcastle to Swansea into a booking engine, or went to a ticket office, I'd get offered Cross-Country's 'basic' fare of (say) £65 (preferably with an explanation of the Birmingham dilemma), Arriva's basic fare of (say) £40, and an East Coast - FGW option at basic fares of (say) £25 + £20.

This is wher things may get a bit more contentious!

OK, I;ve bought, for argument's sake, an XC Newcastle to Swansea off peak return for £65.50. This will entitle me to get certain XC trains at no supplement, if I understand the proposal correctly.

But what happens when I get to Bristol parkway on a direct train? I then catch FGW to Swansea? What are the supplements on that train? What if I want to stop off in Cardiff for a couple of beers with my friend? I can break my journey with an off peak, but I might then catch an ATW train home.

What if I want to stop off in Birmingham to visit the Ian Allan bookshop there? Then I might want to travel to Cardiff via Gloucester! Presumably that wouldn't be allowed either, because only FGW and XC will get a share of the ticket revenue? Although without ORCATS or something similar, for journeys such as this involving two or more TOC's who is to decide who gets what?

It sounds as though what you want is Advance type prices, with Advance type routeing restrictions, but with the choice of choosing which trains you can catch on certain sections? Although they will be flexible tickets in name, in reality there won't be as much flexibility as now, though the price will be much lower than now. Would that be a fair summary?

Once I'd bought, I'd be committed to my chosen route, but could get a refund less an admin charge. I'd also be told the supplement(s) for upgrading to peak trains on the day, and for sitting in first class, both of which might be large. But if I did unexpectedly need to travel earlier on the day (for example) I wouldn't be told my pre-bought ticket was worthless and I'd have to buy an Anytime Single at £139, which was then divvied up between about 9 train companies according to a passenger survey in 1993, or something.

So, if I understand this correctly, the main purpose of your simplification is to benefit those people who don't like either committing themselves to one particular train, or paying more for more flexibility?

Sorry, but although there are some advantages to somesections of the travelling public, overall I don't think the disadvantages, compared to what we have now, are worth. I don't think the interavailability aspect has been thought through either.

 

[Zoe]

Correct, booking engines only show through tickets. The number of possible splits and routeings that may turn out cheaper makes it unfeasible to do anything else. Particularly as it would complicate the whole process,w hich is not the objective here.

Isn't using split advance tickets quite a risk if you get delayed? I know people are of the opinion that you are covered as the conditions of carriage allow more than one ticket to be used for a single journey but elsewhere I was told that it's your responsibility to get to the starting station of any advance ticket you have on time and in the event of any delays in getting to the starting station of each ticket you will not be covered.