"Simplifying" the ECML fares exposes illegal rises

[yorkie]

In preperation for "simplification", I see the Saver has temporarily been renamed Supersaver (to become Super Off Peak), and the Business Saver has become Saver (to become Off Peak).

This is interesting, as it proves what many of us have suspected all along: the franchise has been breaking the law by unfairly increasing the cost of the Supersaver to the level of the Saver PLUS higher than inflation increases, and the Saver has been massively increased to incredibly disproportionate levels by pretending (for a few years) that it is a "business" product, although this pretending is now coming to an end, but the unfair fares remain.

Of course, you are going to be thinking "But they are not allowed to do that! Savers are regulated fares!" Indeed, they have broken the law, but in a very sneaky way by using a loophole which means they have got away with it. It's fine for the railway companies to break the law, you know. But they throw a wobbler if any of their customers do!

Anyway, how they did this was to "abolish" the SuperSaver, as it was not regulated they got away with this. They then made the Saver roughly as restrictive as the SuperSaver (not valid into London until 1115! and they also introduced restrictions on the evening peak out of London, the Saver used to be unrestricted). They then introduced a new product, called the Business Saver, which has similar restrictions to the old Saver including being valid on any train in the evening peak out of London. Only the business saver is, of course, far more expensive than the old Saver!

For years they got away with this massive increase by stealth, by claiming that the business saver was not a saver with increased costs but actually a new product for business.

Simplification has exposed this lie!

If you go to thetrainline.com (or any of the equivalent sites branded by a TOC), and search for journeys both before and after 7th September, you will see the Saver has been renamed Supersaver, and the Business Saver has been renamed Saver. Obviously, when the 7th of September comes along they will be renamed Super Off Peak and Off Peak respectively.

To make matters worse, GrandCentral are not using the same convention - but I'll discuss that in a seperate topic.

See the attached file (this includes railcard discounts and only shows fares up to the SOR - which is to be renamed Anytime).

 

[Metroland]

Confused me for a sec, because I didn't read those prices included a railcard discount at first! Without the railcard discount the super off peak price is nearly the same as the more expensive saver, around £79.20! Bring on the national railcard for us all!

Anyway, I digress. Well it's not surprising at all, the train companies policy now appears to be to encourage people to book in advance/travel off peak, to fill all those empty seats to pay premiums to the government.

We could do with an enthusiasts ticket, similar to a staff priv cards where you can buy blocks of 48 hour all lines travel.

 

[paul1609]

I dont think you'll find that these increases are illegal. Regulated means that they require the approval of the ORR to increase the price. These moves are part of the NXEC franchise bid which has been approved by the ORR. A similar situation arose with the new SWT and FCC franchises last year.

 

[rail-britain]

the franchise has been breaking the law by unfairly increasing the cost of the Supersaver

As above, the fares are regulated and although the fare name has changed its fare type has not, so therefore there is no breach either from the guidelines or contract

Perhaps submitting a query to ORR would define a more specific response

It's like increasing the price on a Cheap Day Return whilst at the same time renaming it Off Peak Return, quite within the contract

 

[91101]

So, with the simplification of ticketing and the now creation of an Off Peak (Bus Saver) and a Super Off Peak (Saver) does that mean that an Off Peak former Bus Saver now becomes a regulated fare?

The thing is Yorkie, and I unfortunatly dont have the time to do the research and collate the figures together to prove my point, but the business saver was always an attractive shoulder peak BUSINESS product. GNER were heavily criticised when they commenced their new franchise in May 05 for the resultant fair increases to the SOR/SOS and BVR tickets, but what they actually did, at least in my mind was to draw a paralell with their WCML counterparts.

Virgin's product range had in it a saver, a range of "business" advance purchase tickets and the SOR. The business advance purchase tickets were not as onouros as a standard Virgin Value ticket and the quotas were much higher. There were generally priced between a saver and an SOR, and IIRC were priced into three bands. Quotas were not available on the peak prime business trains but were quite widley available on the shoulder peak (0945-1100 into EUS) trains. They were an advance purchase fare, and were one train only tickets, but again IIRC there was no administration charges to excess to an SOS should time dictate it. The prices on LDS-KGX and MAN-EUS between the above mentioned product and the BVR were comparative when considering their "place" in the market as a "shoulder peak" business product.

My point being that the positioning of BVR at the price point its at is not unfair or unjust, and is inline with comparable Intercity London based flows. Obviously, the SVR ticket, was positioned, and is positioned towards off peak leisure travel and as such I whole heartedly support the addition of restrictions on it such as an evening peak restriction, or arrival into London after 11, as these customers for whome this ticket are designed can accomodate that flexiblity to not travel at peak times, whilst the more timesensative business travellers on the BVR/SOR can "enjoy" slightly less crowded surroundings whilsts most of them are travelling.

 

[yorkie]

I am disappointed some people see this as being fair. It isn't.

Ignoring the names, the product that was "regulated" was a ticket that allowed travel into London at off-peak times and was unrestricted in the evening peak. It is that product - in whatever name - that should be regulated.

Instead the NAME has been regulated, not the product, which is surely illegal and fare rises by stealth. But regulating a name is pointless - and the fact they have re-classified the names to admit the scam that they carried out, proves it!

 

[devon_metro]

How confusing is that ?:?

 

[theblackwatch]

Have you contacted the ORR with your concerns?

 

[paul1609]

I am disappointed some people see this as being fair. It isn't.

Ignoring the names, the product that was "regulated" was a ticket that allowed travel into London at off-peak times and was unrestricted in the evening peak. It is that product - in whatever name - that should be regulated.

Instead the NAME has been regulated, not the product, which is surely illegal and fare rises by stealth. But regulating a name is pointless - and the fact they have re-classified the names to admit the scam that they carried out, proves it!

Yes but this is exactly the same as happened with the SWT franchise when CDR leapt 30% in price and the regulated fare became the Super Off Peak. Its definantly not illegal whether its fair or not I would suggest depends on your viewpoint, the elected government has decided that the £6 billion subsidy the railway receives has got to be reduced. Given that the railways costs are increasing above the general rate of inflation that can only be achieved by fare increases. I'm afraid the days of cheap rail travel are over.

 

[yorkie]

Paul - good point, was the CDR 'regulated'?

Theblackwatch - Think we have a case? I am considering contacting Barry Doe, I wonder if he may be best placed to put forward these concerns.

 

[rail-britain]

The same might happen with some fares at FSR, when the SPT fares disappear, don't say I didn't warn you!

 

[theblackwatch]

Theblackwatch - Think we have a case? I am considering contacting Barry Doe, I wonder if he may be best placed to put forward these concerns.

Probably a good idea to go through him, as he seems to be quite well-respected by the industry. He also appears to like to get his teeth into things where TOCs are doing things wrong!

 

[Hornby APT]

It would appear that Savers are not the only fares that are being increased by 'stealth'. I checked a Cheap Day Single from Newcastle to York, on the 6th Sept it is £21.40 yet on 7th Sept it is £21.90. I know 50p is not a great increase but does this go against what is on the National Rail website?
Quote:
When will fares change?
Advance fares were introduced on 18th May 2008.
From 7 September 2008, walk-up fares (that you don’t have to buy in advance) will be grouped into Anytime or Off-Peak.
Will fares increase as a result of these changes?
No, fares will not increase as a result of the new fare names.

If someone with more fares knowledge than myself could clarify if this is the case it would be most appreciated.

 

[yorkie]

Q: Do ATOC talk rubbish?
A: Yes

Q: Is David Mapp two-faced?
A: Yes

Q: Are ATOC clueless?
A: Yes

I think that sums it up

Of course some people WILL end up paying more from 7th September - it is pretty much unavoidable, and anyone with half a brain (not David Mapp and co) can see that.

 

[dan_atki]

It would appear that Savers are not the only fares that are being increased by 'stealth'. I checked a Cheap Day Single from Newcastle to York, on the 6th Sept it is £21.40 yet on 7th Sept it is £21.90. I know 50p is not a great increase but does this go against what is on the National Rail website?
Quote:
When will fares change?
Advance fares were introduced on 18th May 2008.
From 7 September 2008, walk-up fares (that you don’t have to buy in advance) will be grouped into Anytime or Off-Peak.
Will fares increase as a result of these changes?
No, fares will not increase as a result of the new fare names.

If someone with more fares knowledge than myself could clarify if this is the case it would be most appreciated.

Indeed you are correct - I think there's going to be several complaints come 7th September... Funny thing is, though, I cannot find another increased NXEC fare (admittedly it was only a quick check).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Right lets get one thing clear here, 'Simplification' is not a direct fares rise and is nothing to do with the fares increases that each of the TOCs will implement in September.

Will the price of the Business Saver rise as a result of the fares 'Simplification? NO.

Will the price of the Saver rise as a result of the fares 'Simplification? NO.

All that fares 'Simplification' has done is change the name. In some cases this means the regulated fare has changed from being the Saver to the Business Saver, meaning the regulated fare has, in theory, risen. If NXEC later remove the Super Off-Peak fare (Saver) then there is an obvious issue, but would you rather ATOC (or whoever) turned to NXEC and said "that fare (Business Saver) doesn't fit in our fares structure so you can't have it from 7th September", leaving a just the current Saver (and its restrictions) or the Open Return? Because thats the only other real option. Leaving the Business Saver out of 'Simplification' would only serve to undermine the process further and cause more confusion.

The 50p rise that 'Hornby APT' has shown is nothing to do with 'Simplification', although that may be their excuse, but is part of the thrice yearly fares changes that happen every year.

Now before we all get on a high horse, I'm not saying that what is happening is right, infact, I think 'Simplification is a waste of time, but it is coming, so we all need to understand it, and its effects.

 

[me123]

The same might happen with some fares at FSR, when the SPT fares disappear, don't say I didn't warn you!

Of course, I forgot about that

I'm all for simplifying rail fares; let's face it, the current system is a bit complicated in places for the day-to-day traveller. But I actually find the new system a bit difficult to get my head around... and the stealth fare rises, well that's just downright unfair. When this was announced, there really should have been something put in place to ensure that the "equivalent" fares would remain at the same price until January (when fare look set to rise yet again).

Of course, I'm sure that clause was not put in for a reason... [/conspiracy]

 

[furryfeet]

Right lets get one thing clear here, 'Simplification' is not a direct fares rise and is nothing to do with the fares increases that each of the TOCs will implement in September.

the public, on paying paying more in september, will not see it as that.

So WHY did ATOC not compel the TOC's to freeze all the prices in september, so that they could "demonstrate" their new names for tickets ?

 

[dan_atki]

The 50p rise that 'Hornby APT' has shown is nothing to do with 'Simplification', although that may be their excuse, but is part of the thrice yearly fares changes that happen every year.

The funny thing is, though, that National Rail have ambiguous wording on their website as quoted above. It distinctly says that as a result of this process 'NO fares will increase' regardless of the type they are.

OK, we may know that it is a result of the fares increases in January, May, and September (even then Joe Public are really only aware of the January increase if anything), but at the end of the day people purchasing that CDR will blame the increase on the 'simplification' totally unaware of September changes. It will happen and people will get annoyed by it especially with such wording on the NR website.

What NR should have said is 'Simplification will not cause any increase in fares itself, but the yearly September review may mean a very small number of fares are increased'. That way they cover their (and NXEC's) backs and provide the correct information to the public.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

the public, on paying paying more in september, will not see it as that.

So WHY did ATOC not compel the TOC's to freeze all the prices in september, so that they could "demonstrate" their new names for tickets ?

Good question. Do they have that power though? I'm sure they 'asked' the TOCs not to put fares up.

That said though, would they not have done the same in May when Advance fares were renamed? Everyone blamed the increase of SVR restrictions and fares on 'Simplification' aswell. Then you must also see that the costs involved in running a TOC must have gone up aswell. Perhaps a case of "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

The funny thing is, though, that National Rail have ambiguous wording on their website as quoted above. It distinctly says that as a result of this process 'NO fares will increase' regardless of the type they are....

....but at the end of the day people purchasing that CDR will blame the increase on the 'simplification' totally unaware of September changes. It will happen and people will get annoyed by it especially with such wording on the NR website....

I whole heartedly agree that joe public will not see the fares increase as a seperate issue, but my point was more aimed at posters within this thread and any others that join in, rather than joe public, who, lets be honest, will never read this anyway.

I have not seen NRs site to clarify what is written on it so must assume that Hornby APT has quoted correctly. In which case the emphasis is all wrong.

"No, fares will not increase as a result of the new fare names."

Everyone looked at the first bit, but ignores the important bit at the end.

 

[adambro]

I think the sooner people realise that ATOC is only set up to represent the interests of its members, the train operating companies, the better. This is no secret, see their website, but it does seem that many people seem to think that ATOC will take the interests of passengers above those of its members. This can perhaps be demonstrated by their unwillingness to publish the NFM in full. Whilst it is a big document I suspect it would be reasonably feasible to have it available online. Despite it possibly being of benefit to passengers, they don't do so because it wouldn't be in the interests of its members, the TOCs. This certainly doesn't mean that ATOC are a bad organistation, merely that the purpose they serve is not necessarily what some people think it should be.

 

[yorkie]

I had a thought about the BVRs being renamed SVRs, so I had a look at (for example) London to Bishopbriggs. This is a Glasgow outer-suburban town, but it's often quicker to go to King's Cross than Euston as it's easier to change at Waverley than cross Glasgow.

Take a look at the screenshot attached to this post!

You can see that the Saver remains Saver (they can't rename this Super Off Peak because that would not make sense on the West Coast route), but the Business Saver has been renamed.... Saver!

Both are "any permitted"; and there would be nothing to distinguish them as, once printed, the restriction codes do not appear on the tickets.

The renaming of the BVR as a Saver is only temporary in preperation for it - along with the original Saver - to be renamed 'Off Peak'.

There are going to be loads of blunders like this all over the country, I can sense it!!

 

[rail-britain]

Bishopbriggs is a bad example
You should be able to select just about any station within the SPT area and the long-distance fare will be the same!
Furthermore the fares for SPT area assume that all journeys are via Glasgow Central or Queen Street

An example of this would be Kilmarnock to Euston, where it would make more sense to travel via Dumfries, change at Carlisle, however as above that's the way it has been agreed

There have been loads of complaints that passengers between Motherwell and Euston, pay the same as those between Helensburgh or Ayr and Euston
Again, some passengers may have to travel via Glasgow Central (nothing worse than whizzing through the station you were at just an hour ago, or you now need to make your way back to!)
However, that problem will soon be solved as passengers for Motherwell won't have many direct connections to Euston from the end of this year!

 

[yorkie]

I don't see how Bishopbriggs was a bad example at all - it demonstrated the point perfectly.

Anyway I have looked at the fares to Ayr - obviously that is more likely to route you via Euston than King's Cross.

As you can see, it's the same - although the more expensive Saver is even more expensive by a few more quid compared to Bishopbriggs.

 

[yorkie]

An example of this would be Kilmarnock to Euston, where it would make more sense to travel via Dumfries, change at Carlisle, however as above that's the way it has been agreed

Kilmarnock now has 3 Saver fares, as above plus a route "Dumfries" which is £2.40 cheaper than "Any permitted".

 

[theblackwatch]

Perhaps it is time that the restriction code - or even full details of the restriction itself - were printed on the tickets? If there isn't room to print the restriction on the ticket, then in my view this just goes to show that any such restrictions are too complex for the majority of people to understand.

 

[glynn80]

Right lets get one thing clear here, 'Simplification' is not a direct fares rise and is nothing to do with the fares increases that each of the TOCs will implement in September.

Will the price of the Business Saver rise as a result of the fares 'Simplification? NO.

Will the price of the Saver rise as a result of the fares 'Simplification? NO.

All that fares 'Simplification' has done is change the name. In some cases this means the regulated fare has changed from being the Saver to the Business Saver, meaning the regulated fare has, in theory, risen. If NXEC later remove the Super Off-Peak fare (Saver) then there is an obvious issue, but would you rather ATOC (or whoever) turned to NXEC and said "that fare (Business Saver) doesn't fit in our fares structure so you can't have it from 7th September", leaving a just the current Saver (and its restrictions) or the Open Return? Because thats the only other real option. Leaving the Business Saver out of 'Simplification' would only serve to undermine the process further and cause more confusion.

The 50p rise that 'Hornby APT' has shown is nothing to do with 'Simplification', although that may be their excuse, but is part of the thrice yearly fares changes that happen every year.

Now before we all get on a high horse, I'm not saying that what is happening is right, infact, I think 'Simplification is a waste of time, but it is coming, so we all need to understand it, and its effects.

What authority do you have it on that Simplification will not be a excuse for stealth fare rises? I thought really only ATOC could be commenting on that and even then they are hardly going to admit to it. At present the Saver fares are currently "protected" but these will become a number of things depending on each route from the Anytime to Off Peak so what will now be protected, will it be the Off Peak fare or the Super Off Peak? Already we are worse off with these changes with the SOR now only valid on the outward travel date so they are certainly restricting us with these changes!

 

[rail-britain]

I don't see how Bishopbriggs was a bad example at all - it demonstrated the point perfectly

Not sure if you misunderstood...
The fares are based on travelling via Glasgow Central, even if you don't do so
It's a bizarre setup

The point is proven on the Kilmarnock - Euston fare, where the via Dumfries fare is slightly cheaper and that makes sense
The same is probably available from Bishopbriggs, with a via Edinburgh fare being slightly cheaper

It's probably the same if I travel from Cumbernauld, as I have a few choices, either to Glasgow, Motherwell, Falkirk, or Edinburgh

 

[yorkie]

Perhaps it is time that the restriction code - or even full details of the restriction itself - were printed on the tickets? If there isn't room to print the restriction on the ticket, then in my view this just goes to show that any such restrictions are too complex for the majority of people to understand.

Far too complex to print. And yes, too complex to understand. Some tickets even have 2 codes (one 'main' code which then says 'for journeys to/from xyz bla see code XX ):roll:

 

[John @ home]

Perhaps it is time that the restriction code - or even full details of the restriction itself - were printed on the tickets?

Far too complex to print. And yes, too complex to understand. Some tickets even have 2 codes (one 'main' code which then says 'for journeys to/from xyz bla see code XX ):roll:

There was an attempt to do this when passengers making on-line bookings were sent large tickets by post. For example, in March 2006 I was sent a Business Saver return from Leeds to London and the return portion is endorsed: INVALID FROM LON/STV 0645-0815 OR STPAN 16-1900M-F

This attempt went spectacularly wrong at times. I have a cheap day return ticket from Sheffield to Nottingham route Any Permitted dated the same month where the return portion is endorsed: NOT VALID BY GW TRAINS EX PADDINGTON 1600-1900 M-F

Even my hopelessly optimistic interpretation of the Routeing guide would not have considered coming back via Paddington!

John