Scrap TOC only tickets

[London Trains]

I believe tickets only allowing you to travel on a particular TOC should be withdrawn unless the journey time is significantly different.

Certain examples such as LNWR from Euston to Birmingham would keep separate fares from Avanti since the journey time is ridiculously long (can take more than an hour longer) on the LNWR. However most TOC only tickets (such as Avanti or TPE on the north WCML and LNER, TPE and XC on the north ECML) should be withdrawn and only the any permitted tickets should exist.

 

[Mills444]

Simple question is why?

 

[najaB]

I believe tickets only allowing you to travel on a particular TOC should be withdrawn unless the journey time is significantly different.

To what ends?

 

[bramling]

I believe tickets only allowing you to travel on a particular TOC should be withdrawn unless the journey time is significantly different.

Certain examples such as LNWR from Euston to Birmingham would keep separate fares from Avanti since the journey time is ridiculously long (can take more than an hour longer) on the LNWR. However most TOC only tickets (such as Avanti or TPE on the north WCML and LNER, TPE and XC on the north ECML) should be withdrawn and only the any permitted tickets should exist.

I very much agree. In many cases they create issues with the cheaper option becoming overcrowded whilst the more expensive option runs with spare capacity. This would be fine on a railway where there's the space to do all this, but it's unacceptable where we are stuffing the railway full of more and more trains.

 

[mikeg]

I agree to a certain extent, competition doesn't always work where journeys are time-sensitive either. Surely the better option would be to have more effective regulation, to replicate the effects of competition in order to lower costs and fares? Remember that competition is not in and of itself an end, it should be a means to better serve the passenger. I support the withdrawal of such tickets and the introduction of fares priced somewhere in between the two that are interavailable, with a bias towards the lower fare in long-standing situations.

 

[Wolfie]

I believe tickets only allowing you to travel on a particular TOC should be withdrawn unless the journey time is significantly different.

Certain examples such as LNWR from Euston to Birmingham would keep separate fares from Avanti since the journey time is ridiculously long (can take more than an hour longer) on the LNWR. However most TOC only tickets (such as Avanti or TPE on the north WCML and LNER, TPE and XC on the north ECML) should be withdrawn and only the any permitted tickets should exist.

At what price? Is all that you are proposing basically removal of the cheaper options. Some people might well accept a certain loss of flexibility for a cost saving. Your proposal removes that option.

How long a time differential is acceptable for cost to be the same? 10mins, 30mins, a % of the overall journey time? Who decides that?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Approximately how much more revenue might a TOC (in normal times) take from their own TOC specific ticket priced at say 10 pence less than Any Permitted ticket which is presumably subject to ORCATS?

 

[Bletchleyite]

At what price? Is all that you are proposing basically removal of the cheaper options. Some people might well accept a certain loss of flexibility for a cost saving. Your proposal removes that option.

How long a time differential is acceptable for cost to be the same? 10mins, 30mins, a % of the overall journey time? Who decides that?

A hard-and-fast rule is probably not sensible. But it could be restricted to act like open access, i.e. the TOC would have to evidence that the fare was not primarily abtractive or petty (i.e. that it grew the market, which the LNR Liverpool fares probably do, say, by taking from coach and the old banger on the M6), but also that it would not cause overcrowding on trains on which it would be valid (which the LNR fares would fail as they do), with longer trains or increased frequencies mandatory to offset any such effect.

Similarly, cases like TPE vs. Northern on local routes, or Avanti vs. LNR on MKC-Euston, are silly, though I'm not sure how we would legislate for those. Perhaps a minimum distance, by the shortest Permitted Route on rail, of 100km? The short distance ones almost never make sense, similarly with Advances which might be sensibly restricted to journeys of a minimum of that distance too.

 

[najaB]

Surely the simple answer would be making them universally excessable to the Any Permitted fare, no?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely the simple answer would be making them universally excessable to the Any Permitted fare, no?

It is certainly needed to be able to excess any ticket to any other ticket as appropriate, but that is another debate

 

[RobertsN]

I am not very versed in the ticketing value calculations. I currently live in Stratford-upon-Avon (SAV) and was considering going to see St. Bees (SBS) for the weekend of the 22nd. The reason is that that's where my dad grew up, and wanted to see were he had.
Using the National Rail website (so no strange splitting options) - now - shows the currently ridiculous situation:
* Book through ticket (SAV-SBS): Depart 9:03 arrive 15:23 = £15 (advance)
* Book ticket ON SAME TRAINS: SAV-Birmingham Moor St. (BMO) = £8.50, Birmingham New St. (BHM) -SBS = £15, Total, £23.50 (off-peak - no advance available - then advance for 2nd leg)

I know this may not be totally relevant to the discussion at hand. The reason I brought this up is because it's ridiculous, other than the difference in purchasing separately.

SAV->Moor Street is under 1 hour's travel (say around 40 miles at the most) - on a stop at every corner WMR train.
BHM->St. Bees is never under 5 hours - some faster stretches and then the typical stop everywhere Northern Trains. This is certainly a LOT MORE than 40 miles).

So how can a 5 hour trip be less than double the less-than-one-hour-trip.

I did actually check this at the beginning of last week and the results were even weirder. I don't recall the exact figures but buying a ticket to St. Bees from SAV cost EXACTLY the SAME as a ticket to Moor St. (I also clarify that the first leg to St. Bees - via Moor St. - was on the SAME TRAIN as for that which I was being offered a ticket to Moor St).

Something is obviously wrong here.

Sorry, replying to myself to add something.

Some may say that the issue is the "off-peak" vs "advance" issue. Whilst I am very much into Railways (why would I be here if not), the common person on the street would find the whole thing preposterous (and maybe a lot do).

I would imagine that it's a question of maybe WMR not selling Advances, since they are a "commuter" railway. But then why would the whole trip cost the same as the "commuter" section. Once again, makes no sense.

Edit: Would like to add that last week (details unfortunately lost), the exact same thing happened when I inquired for a return.

 

[JonathanH]

Using the National Rail website (so no strange splitting options) - now - shows the currently ridiculous situation:
* Book through ticket (SAV-SBS): Depart 9:03 arrive 15:23 = £15 (advance)
* Book ticket ON SAME TRAINS: SAV-BMO = £8.50, BNS-SBS = £15, Total, £23.50 (off-peak - no advance available - then advance for 2nd leg)

So you are getting the journey from Stratford on Avon to Birmingham 'for free' on a through advance fare. What is wrong with that (for the passenger)? It isn't ridiculous at all (for the passenger).

If you look at the walk up fares, you get SAV-SBS = £121.60 off-peak return, BHM-SBS = £108.40 off-peak return. The advance just happens to be available as a kind of 'special offer' with no additional charge for the local bit.

Are you arguing that the long distance fare is being 'given away' too cheaply? You may be, but let's be thankful that such offers exist on the railway.

In the same way, TOC only tickets can also be seen as an 'offer' that might make the difference between someone travelling or choosing to take the car.

 

[RobertsN]

So you are getting the journey from Stratford on Avon to Birmingham 'for free' on a through advance fare. What is wrong with that (for the passenger)? It isn't ridiculous at all (for the passenger).

If you look at the walk up fares, you get SAV-SBS = £121.60 off-peak return, BHM-SBS = £108.40 off-peak return. The advance just happens to be available as a kind of 'special offer' with no additional charge for the local bit.

Are you arguing that the long distance fare is being 'given away' too cheaply? You may be, but let's be thankful that such offers exist on the railway.

In the same way, TOC only tickets can also be seen as an 'offer' that might make the difference between someone travelling or choosing to take the car.

I understand your reasoning. However, if a colleague and I were to take a trip to BHM (one of us) and SBS (the other), there's something inherently wrong in that it would cost the same (so to follow your reasoning, BHM-SBS would be "free" for the second person - which is mad being 5 times longer in travel-time).

EDIT: I'm NOT saying make it (the second option) more expensive, just more predictable and related to distance/time.

EDIT 2: Walk-up fares are nuts! The train is there, the capacity is there (more so nowadays), why charge exhorbitantly higher tickets? Before you say capacity planning, as far as I can seen NO TOC has capacity planning in place. If you want to go (even with reserved, advance tickets), you'll often find yourself fighting along the aisles to reach your reserved seat. So, what's the point of that?

 

[PupCuff]

I'm generally inclined to say that the option for a customer to benefit from a cheaper ticket in exchange for them giving up some of their flexibility is a perfectly reasonable one.

Whether more needs to be done to make it clear to customers that their ticket only allows them travel on a given train is a perfectly valid argument and I couldn't disagree with that. I'm not sure how, though. Brand TOC-only tickets with the TOC's logo etc? Possibly easier for e-tickets than paper ones.

 

[Hadders]

I believe tickets only allowing you to travel on a particular TOC should be withdrawn unless the journey time is significantly different.

Certain examples such as LNWR from Euston to Birmingham would keep separate fares from Avanti since the journey time is ridiculously long (can take more than an hour longer) on the LNWR. However most TOC only tickets (such as Avanti or TPE on the north WCML and LNER, TPE and XC on the north ECML) should be withdrawn and only the any permitted tickets should exist.

Goodbye to many good value tickets then. I don't know what you call significantly different from a time point of view but some example of what you're potentially proposing are:

Take Peterborough to London for a day out at the weekend. A ticket for use on GTR only costs £20.70 but you propose abolishing that fare and forcing passengers to pay £37.40
Milton Keynes to London Off Peak Day Return. Commit to Avanti trains only and it costs £15.60 but abolish that fare and it'll cost £20.80
A price sensitive passenger can travel from Manchester to London return for just £35 with TFW&LNR. Abolish that and it'll cost £92.10
York to Newcastle Off Peak Day Return with Transpennine Express is £29.70. Abolish that and pay £42.00

All I'll say is be very, very careful what you wish for.....

 

[yorkie]

Surely the simple answer would be making them universally excessable to the Any Permitted fare, no?

Exactly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Milton Keynes to London Off Peak Day Return. Commit to Avanti trains only and it costs £15.60 but abolish that fare and it'll cost £20.80

It probably wouldn't, as they'd probably change it to the same Super Off Peak/Off Peak structure the other stations have.

But looking at it realistically, if both TOCs offer a return at about £16, as they do, then why not offer that price as the interavailable ticket? Revenue would be split based on who uses who, which is what happens with a TOC specific ticket too!

 

[yorkie]

It probably wouldn't, as they'd probably change it to the same Super Off Peak/Off Peak structure the other stations have.

But looking at it realistically, if both TOCs offer a return at about £16, as they do, then why not offer that price as the interavailable ticket? Revenue would be split based on who uses who.

Could they make this change without being deemed to be 'colluding'? (I don't know the answer, it's a genuine question!)

 

[Hadders]

It probably wouldn't, as they'd probably change it to the same Super Off Peak/Off Peak structure the other stations have.

But looking at it realistically, if both TOCs offer a return at about £16, as they do, then why not offer that price as the interavailable ticket? Revenue would be split based on who uses who, which is what happens with a TOC specific ticket too!

In theory all it would need is LNR, as the lead operator to reduce the price of the Any Permitted fare. They wouldn't need to collude with anyone to do that. Two potential issues though:

- There might be a risk that Avanti would further undercut the lower Any Permitted fare
- Which fare is regulated and would a large reduction work if regulated fares are supposed to increase by RPI+1%

 

[LOL The Irony]

The problem with removing TOC only tickets (as much as I don't like them) is best portrayed by the WCML. If you had to remove TOC only tickets and not have a suitable replacement, the avanti trains will be packed whilst the LNWR fasts will just cart around fresh air.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could they make this change without being deemed to be 'colluding'? (I don't know the answer, it's a genuine question!)

Possibly not, but as we are talking about making changes to the system we could introduce a change that did allow that.

 

[Starmill]

It probably wouldn't, as they'd probably change it to the same Super Off Peak/Off Peak structure the other stations have.

But looking at it realistically, if both TOCs offer a return at about £16, as they do, then why not offer that price as the interavailable ticket? Revenue would be split based on who uses who, which is what happens with a TOC specific ticket too!

Wolverton to London Super Off Peak Day Return is £19.80, so presumably they'd set it to that, or 10p less. I doubt they would keep it at £15.60, but in practical terms it probably couldn't go above £19.80.

Indeed, buying from Wolverton currently gives cheaper flexibility than from Milton Keynes Central currently, but only if you commit to the Super Off Peak times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with removing TOC only tickets (as much as I don't like them) is best portrayed by the WCML. If you had to remove TOC only tickets and not have a suitable replacement, the avanti trains will be packed whilst the LNWR fasts will just cart around fresh air.

They won't. What will happen is what should, namely that there is enough capacity on both trains for those who wish to use it.

The present (pre COVID) predatory pricing causes LNR services to be overcrowded while Avanti ones cart fresh air, particularly on the Trent Valley.

In theory all it would need is LNR, as the lead operator to reduce the price of the Any Permitted fare.

True, and indeed LM (I think it was them that did it) did actually reduce the Super Off Peak from Bletchley so it wasn't more expensive than the TOC specific MKC fare, to stop people keeping asking for the latter at Bletchley.

 

[Starmill]

The problem with removing TOC only tickets (as much as I don't like them) is best portrayed by the WCML. If you had to remove TOC only tickets and not have a suitable replacement, the avanti trains will be packed whilst the LNWR fasts will just cart around fresh air.

I think it’s near certain that would not happen.

The long distance passengers would switch to Megabus or car shares, or not travel at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it’s near certain that would not happen.

The passengers would switch to Megabus or car shares, or not travel at all.

That goes back to my idea of applying the same test as would apply to an Open Access operator, plus an overcrowding test.

That would probably allow for the longer-distance LNR fares to remain (as they do provide a market differentiation) but get rid of the MKC-Euston silliness. However it would require them not to offer the fares on the Trent Valley services until they became 8-car, so as to avoid overcrowding. (The general principle should be that no discounted fare beyond the standard Off Peak/Super Off Peak structure plus the usual national/regional discounts like Railcards should be offered on any train that would, as a result, carry a standing load that it would not carry in the absence of those fares).

Similarly, the Northern Only/TPE Only fares in the North do not represent any significant market segmentation, as they are only pennies different from each other. They should therefore go because they are not beneficial.

Another way of doing it would be to require the discount from the relevant Any Permitted fare to be a given minimum percentage with a flat minimum discount - let's say perhaps they must be at a minimum 40% cheaper with a minimum discount of £10 (increased by RPI each year). That would stop them doing 10p-cheaper predatory efforts while still allowing genuine market segmentation.

A further one would be a minimum distance of 100km or so - as genuine market segmentation only really works over long distances. There is no genuine segmentation from MKC to Euston, the journey times are similar (if you take a faster LNR train) and the prices are similar. There is no genuine segmentation from Gatwick to Victoria either, you get the same train run by the same TOC with different coloured seats.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

I've had a rant before, but the price disparities between towns/cities to London walk up tickets is criminal, the government suggested they'd make the ticket system simpler and aid passengers
The reality is the only fare way I can see to make the fare system honest and transparent is using a cost per mile calculation

£.XX per mile * number of whole miles = Base fare (Off Peak single)

Base Fare + XX% peak surcharge = Peak Single

Base Fare - XX% Advance Discount (sliding scale from 90 days) = Advance Single

Return = Double Single Fare.

Simples no more Ipswich to London costing double the cost of Northampton to London.

The only problem is some fare will go up, some will go massively down and the cost of running the railway on certain lines will be higher than others and who sets the cost per mile across the entire UK network?

 

[yorkie]

The reality is the only fare way I can see to make the fare system honest and transparent is using a cost per mile calculation

Under your proposals, what would the range of fares for the following journeys be:

York - Whitby
Manchester - London
Peterborough - Leicester
Peterborough - Nottingham
Exeter - Penzance
Cattal - Dronfield

 

[Ianno87]

That goes back to my idea of applying the same test as would apply to an Open Access operator, plus an overcrowding test.

The test would be "does offering this TOC only fare provide a net increase in the revenue to UK rail as a whole, or is it only giving people who would've traveled anyway a cheaper ride"?

I don't think this would necessarily be related to distance; e.g. the TOC-specific fares between London and Cambridge (for example) I'm convinced generate demand that otherwise wouldn't have travelled at all.

 

[mrcheek]

I very much agree. In many cases they create issues with the cheaper option becoming overcrowded whilst the more expensive option runs with spare capacity. This would be fine on a railway where there's the space to do all this, but it's unacceptable where we are stuffing the railway full of more and more trains.

so passengers can pay a lesser fare to travel on a crowded service, or a premium fare if they wish to have more room to themselves. sounds perfectly sensible

 

[Bletchleyite]

so passengers can pay a lesser fare to travel on a crowded service, or a premium fare if they wish to have more room to themselves. sounds perfectly sensible

Not for those whose only choice is the one you have arbitrarily rammed full purely using the fares system.

That's why I proposed the "overcrowding test" - TOCs would be prohibited from doing it if it would be likely to cause a train to carry a standing load that it would not carry otherwise. That would certainly apply to many LNR services. If you want the money, you put the capacity on.

I think they'd see it all a bit differently if standees were banned. (I don't favour that, but it is something to think about)