Using multiple tickets for one journey should be banned, with passengers forced to exit the train at the split point

[HSTEd]

How do you logically decide which origin-destinations do not have their own fares? For instance, making London - Manchester a sum of London - Birmingham and Birmingham - Manchester would make no economic sense. You'd expect London - Manchester to be substantially cheaper than the sum of 'two halves' but slightly more expensive than 'each half'.

Given that very few people travelling from London to Manchester would be able to split their ticket at Birmingham as it stands... I'm not sure how good an example that is.

Well I propose that, initially, we just switch the split ticketing system on and then remove fares that don't get sold much in the following year.

I expect there are many fares which would never be sold, even without accounting for advances.

Once that's done, we can begin a thorough review.
Personally I think lines with self contained services should be priced as self contained blocks, but many disagree with me on that.

 

[JonathanH]

The industry already uses station clusters to reduce the number of unique fares. We just need station clusters to be employed more consistently and systematically, probably formalised into a published zonal system.

Station clusters themselves cause large step ups in fares between adjacent destinations.

For example:
Stirling to Wallyford £16.30 off-peak day return
Stirling to Prestonpans £22.00 off-peak day return
Wallyford to Prestonpans £2.50 off-peak day return

All because Wallyford is at the edge of one cluster, and Prestonpans is in the next one.

 

[styles]

I'd be fine with this, if the fares were reformed such that it doesn't cost over twice the price to buy a through ticket.

Forcing passengers to physically break their journey on split tickets would otherwise just show contempt for the travelling public. Instead of making fares cheaper or rationalising them, we're just going to penalise passengers instead.

Bear in mind that currently some operators themselves sell split tickets through their official channels, like Scotrail.

 

[The exile]

(Is anyone aware of how the German Verkhersverbund city transport reigons deal with a similar issue?)

Now not much of an issue as journeys on regional trains are likely to be using the D-Ticket. As Verbundtickets weren’t / aren’t valid on ICs split ticketing as we know it has little advantage - except possibly where the “boundary” station happens to be an IC stop.
That said, I’m sure there are / were journeys where “stueckeln” would have saved the odd Euro.

 

[NCT]

Given that very few people travelling from London to Manchester would be able to split their ticket at Birmingham as it stands... I'm not sure how good an example that is.

Well I propose that, initially, we just switch the split ticketing system on and then remove fares that don't get sold much in the following year.

I expect there are many fares which would never be sold, even without accounting for advances.

Once that's done, we can begin a thorough review.
Personally I think lines with self contained services should be priced as self contained blocks, but many disagree with me on that.

This isn't a logic based solution, and is too at the mercy of circumstantial quirks in a given year. Each origin-destination needs to have a stable set of standard fares that can be looked up, even if it's built up through building blocks and station cluster logics. A fare removed would not have an obvious 'break point' or set of break points. Differential changes to different fares would result in break points to change over the years and such a combined fare to be volatile. A more logical and transparent system is needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2026 ==

Station clusters themselves cause large step ups in fares between adjacent destinations.

For example:
Stirling to Wallyford £16.30 off-peak day return
Stirling to Prestonpans £22.00 off-peak day return
Wallyford to Prestonpans £2.50 off-peak day return

All because Wallyford is at the edge of one cluster, and Prestonpans is in the next one.

This says station clusters need to be at different levels of granularity for different fares. Using London as an example, for regional journeys London's zones can form individual clusters, but for a London suburb - Glasgow suburb fare, the entire Greater London area could be a single cluster. There just needs to be a sensible set of logic to be applied somewhat scientifically.

 

[JonathanH]

This says station clusters need to be at different levels of granularity for different fares. Using London as an example, for regional journeys London's zones can form individual clusters, but for a London suburb - Glasgow suburb fare, the entire Greater London area could be a single cluster. There just needs to be a sensible set of logic to be applied somewhat scientifically.

Yes, and that is indeed what happens, but you still get an issue at the boundaries.

Cluster R021 has 132 South London stations in it
Cluster R926 has 92 Greater Glasgow stations in it

Indeed, for Avanti advance fares, cluster T233 has 231 stations all across the Central Belt.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Given that very few people travelling from London to Manchester would be able to split their ticket at Birmingham as it stands... I'm not sure how good an example that is.

When I travel north from High Wycombe I find that for off peak return tickets, splitting at Birmingham stations is usually cheaper than the single ticket. The suggested solution would be that a separate price for say High Wycombe to Crewe is abolished and the through ticket always prices as High Wycombe to Birmingham stations and Birmingham stations to Crewe.

 

[aron2smith]

Station clusters themselves cause large step ups in fares between adjacent destinations.

For example:
Stirling to Wallyford £16.30 off-peak day return
Stirling to Prestonpans £22.00 off-peak day return
Wallyford to Prestonpans £2.50 off-peak day return

All because Wallyford is at the edge of one cluster, and Prestonpans is in the next one.

A great example of why we need universal distance based fares. So we can have some consistency with the fares.

 

[D365]

A great example of why we need universal distance based fares. So we can have some consistency with the fares.

This ’idea’ has been discussed in great depth within the following threads:

Should there be a standard fare based on mileage

As the title suggests, should there be a basic standard fare based on mileage travelled? And if so, what would be a fair fare? To encourage more people on to the railways to take the train rather than drive (where the service exists) does anyone have ideas on how should the train be priced? The...

www.railforums.co.uk

Proposal for fares to be based on distance

If you think a mileage based system would solve this When I say milage based I dont mean the same pence per mile rate over the whole of the UK, My thinking is to do it on a per route basis. Again back to the example of our local route pence per mile rates vary from from 19.8p (Scarborough -...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Class83]

This isn't true. It also exists because of how Advance tickets work. If you have A-B-C-D you need the quota you're issuing in to be available for the entire journey. However someone may have purchased that level from B-C, say, and so the entire A-D journey goes up a tier. Splitting comes in at that point - you can buy A-B separately at tier 1, then B-C at tier 2, then C-D at tier 1 again, and that's cheaper than A-D at tier 2.

The only way you fix that (bar banning splitting) is to make the system calculate Advances on the basis of a split.

That's different from most walk-up fare splitting which exists for two reasons:
1. TOC specific fares (as you note)
2. Stringing (super) off peak day returns together for a journey where no off peak day return is available (I save a tenner each time I make a certain journey by doing this).

Surely this is possibly by bundling the fares which would have been bought as splits, then applying the most restrictive conditions. Advance Tiers don't really matter as they're equally restrictive, just differ in price. But the customer only sees one ticket.

1: If any part ticket is an Advanced it's fixed to that train,
2: If any ticket is off peak it's all off peak.
3: If any ticket is a day return (rather than period) it's a day return.

Currently Avanti will sell advances between their stations, but not even simply add on a Standard Single to the end for local connections at times. Though on tickets where the local connection is <10% of the Intercity Journey distance it should really just be chucked in for free, or maybe a nominal £1.

 

[RUK]

It's gaming the system, not playing to the spirit!

Do you not think that it is legitimate, for example, if you are travelling between, say, somewhere outside the Network Railcard area to somewhere in the Network Railcard area, to buy separate tickets to and from the station outside to just inside the Network Railcard area (e.g. Manningtree, if e.g. coming from Norwich), and the rest of the journey within the Network Railcard area, in order to be able to save a third off the tickets for the journey inside the Network Railcard area, rather than paying the full fare for a single journey from Norwich, which falls outside the area, to the stop inside the area?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Do you not think that it is legitimate, for example, if you are travelling between, say, somewhere outside the Network Railcard area to somewhere in the Network Railcard area, to buy separate tickets to and from the station outside to just inside the Network Railcard area (e.g. Manningtree, if e.g. coming from Norwich), and the rest of the journey within the Network Railcard area, in order to be able to save a third off the tickets for the journey inside the Network Railcard area, rather than paying the full fare for a single journey from Norwich, which falls outside the area, to the stop inside the area?

Alternatively when buying a ticket from outside the Network (South East) area to a station within, you get a discount for that part of the journey within the area, provided you hold the appropriate railcard.

 

[HSTEd]

When I travel north from High Wycombe I find that for off peak return tickets, splitting at Birmingham stations is usually cheaper than the single ticket. The suggested solution would be that a separate price for say High Wycombe to Crewe is abolished and the through ticket always prices as High Wycombe to Birmingham stations and Birmingham stations to Crewe.

How would that be different to just an official split ticketing system?

 

[The Pelican]

A great example of why we need universal distance based fares. So we can have some consistency with the fares.

Perhaps a fare should be proportional to "Average speed along an imaginary straight line between origin and destination", so routes which usefully have a well built, fast, direct line pay more, and routes where the line is indirect or slow pay less.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

How would that be different to just an official split ticketing system?

You would just get the one ticket, priced as the sum of its parts.

 

[aron2smith]

Perhaps a fare should be proportional to "Average speed along an imaginary straight line between origin and destination", so routes which usefully have a well built, fast, direct line pay more, and routes where the line is indirect or slow pay less.

That's more or less what I was thinking, charge a flat rate per mile and the busiest routes could charge a premium (say +20%) on top, with a similar but bigger premium (near to double 2nd class fare?) for 1st class . The premium fare would apply if you opt for an any route ticket. The OP can't realistically expect 1 journey, 1 ticket until there is a standardised fare formula across the full network.

The same with decimalising singles, a single needs to be half a return always! Would ensure fairer fares for people staying somewhere overnight and be simpler for anyone doing a round trip, rather than just a return.

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps a fare should be proportional to "Average speed along an imaginary straight line between origin and destination",

So, Barnstaple to Swansea should be cheaper than either of them to Bristol? There are many such examples.

 

[Trainbike46]

I was tempted to make a similar reply - for example, I don't think that there are tickets between Walton (Merseyside) and Rice Lane, or between Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and Eton Riverside. But are there any journeys <edit> without fares </edit> that someone reasonably sensible might want to make by train, rather than by (in both the above cases, and no doubt others) walking? If there are, then there's a meaningful hole in @SargeNpton's argument, but if all the non-existing ticket pairs are for silly journeys, then while the hole is still there it's probably one that we can ignore.

I have found at least one station pair, for a journey I actually wanted to make, where there was a defined fare, but the permitted routes (and that it was an anytime day single) meant it was impossible to actually make the journey without breaking ticket conditions. It was, however, possible to make the journey via a different (non-permitted) route. I resolved this with split-ticketing.

While my case was definitely niche, the concept of using split tickets to make a journey via a route not normally permitted isn't that uncommon.

 

[johntea]

A route I travel on if I don't split the ticket I'm only offered a 'Off Peak Return' but I can split at a station and obtain 2 'Off Peak Day Returns' instead which instantly saves me £7

 

[Mikey C]

Do you not think that it is legitimate, for example, if you are travelling between, say, somewhere outside the Network Railcard area to somewhere in the Network Railcard area, to buy separate tickets to and from the station outside to just inside the Network Railcard area (e.g. Manningtree, if e.g. coming from Norwich), and the rest of the journey within the Network Railcard area, in order to be able to save a third off the tickets for the journey inside the Network Railcard area, rather than paying the full fare for a single journey from Norwich, which falls outside the area, to the stop inside the area?

Alternatively when buying a ticket from outside the Network (South East) area to a station within, you get a discount for that part of the journey within the area, provided you hold the appropriate railcard.

As an example of having to split tickets to be able to use my Railcard, last week I took the train from Paddington to Swindon (off peak). I split this at Didcot, as Paddington to Didcot is within the Network Card area, and there was no other way of getting my 33% discount.

IF the ticketing software could sell me a straight Paddington to Swindon return, which automatically discounted the Paddington to Didcot part of the journey, I would have happily not split my ticket. But it doesn't.

 

[martin butler]

Ticketing reform, really needs to also be part of Railcard reform, instead of having splits, the ticket should price the journey on two options,
the cheapest available route ( cheapest) the system works out each cheapest fare possible, but treats it as one complete jouney,

most direct ( off peak/ peak return, with each priced accordingly,

the cheapest should not offer reservations, where as longer peak/ off peak should include reservations if booked in advance. where reservations are offered,

Railcards, as noted some people book to a railcard area, then rebook for the railcard discount, to their end designation, unless there are massive price differences between national, and local railcards, i would scrap every one of them, and only have national railcards, child to age 18, adult 18 to 60, senior 60 upwards.

 

[D365]

Ticketing reform, really needs to also be part of Railcard reform, instead of having splits, the ticket should price the journey on two options,
the cheapest available route ( cheapest) the system works out each cheapest fare possible, but treats it as one complete jouney,

But that is not the topic of this thread, which suggests to [somehow] put an outright ban on using more than one ticket to complete a journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are two split issues here - walk up and Advance.

With walk up fares we just need a unified structure and someone to run the fares through some sort of AI analysis to find the simple oddities. For instance there are split anomalies in Anytime Day Singles in the Project Oval fares which is just silly. However you can't avoid split anomalies in walk up fares if you have any kind of time restricted "off peak" type fare as it will always be cheaper to split if a journey isn't non-stop and if it goes across a time boundary.

With Advances it's about how quotas work. An Advance fare can only be issued at a given tier if the same quota level exists for the whole journey. To avoid these this would need to be changed so it sums up the parts based on the available quota for each and issues it as one fare. LNER sort of did this when they briefly had splits in their app, and it needs to be the default way to price Advances.

You also have anomalies where through Advances don't exist. There are two answers here. One would be to price Advances per vehicle journey (with the above in place too) and you would just issue a split by default - this is how it works in much of mainland Europe. The other would be to calculate through Advances by summing the components, and where there isn't an Advance fare/quota at all for a given journey segment just add the cheapest applicable walk up single fare in. The third would be to have an Advance fare defined for all journeys even where not sold on its own so it can be summed in in such cases.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

However you can't avoid split anomalies in walk up fares if you have any kind of time restricted "off peak" type fare as it will always be cheaper to split if a journey isn't non-stop and if it goes across a time boundary.

You could potentially issue a single ticket priced as an "off peak" plus an excess to cover the "peak" section. Once the ticketing system supports adding separate tickets together to produce a single ticket, lots of ideas become possible. Similarly Advances priced as "core route" plus "local flexible extension".

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could potentially issue a single ticket priced as an "off peak" plus an excess to cover the "peak" section. Once the ticketing system supports adding separate tickets together to produce a single ticket, lots of ideas become possible.

However that ticket then becomes in effect train specific. I'm not sure this approach, aside from issuing that as an Advance if actual Advances cost more or weren't available, is sensible. Those who know about it can do that, and those who use splitting sites can have it done for them.

For most non-enthusiast users, just ensuring you bridge the ends of the peak with Advances priced reasonably "in the middle" for these edge cases makes most sense. LNER appears to do this both on their "trial" routes and on their ones that retain traditional super off peaks.

 

[Haywain]

You could potentially issue a single ticket priced as an "off peak" plus an excess to cover the "peak" section.

So, to replace split ticketing you're going to create a new form of split ticketing?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

So, to replace split ticketing you're going to create a new form of split ticketing?

Basically yes but it wouldn't be visible to the passengers who would get a single ticket. The idea is to abolish the demand for split tickets to exploit pricing anomalies by removing the anomalies.

 

[SargeNpton]

Basically yes but it wouldn't be visible to the passengers who would get a single ticket. The idea is to abolish the demand for split tickets to exploit pricing anomalies by removing the anomalies.

Past attempts to remove anomalies have usually resulted in other anomalies appearing elsewhere.

The fares structure that was put in place at privatisation doesn't help either. It may be that when GBR is fully operational, a proper revamp of fares pricing can be done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may be that when GBR is fully operational, a proper revamp of fares pricing can be done.

If the proposed TPE "quota controlled, variable priced flexible tickets" thing* isn't anything other than an abject failure, it appears that GBR will just avoid people having splits in mind by obfuscating as much as possible so nobody has any idea what anything costs anyway because it won't be the same from day to day or even hour to hour even if walking up!

* Which appears to have been nabbed from easyJet, who, while they've now dropped it, for a few years had a flexible (changeable for free) fare that was priced based on the highest fare a few days either side of it, if I recall.

 

[ChrisC]

I have found at least one station pair, for a journey I actually wanted to make, where there was a defined fare, but the permitted routes (and that it was an anytime day single) meant it was impossible to actually make the journey without breaking ticket conditions. It was, however, possible to make the journey via a different (non-permitted) route. I resolved this with split-ticketing.

While my case was definitely niche, the concept of using split tickets to make a journey via a route not normally permitted isn't that uncommon.

Last October I tried to purchase a return ticket from Alfreton in Derbyshire to Glasgow, travelling via the Settle to Carlisle line, changing at Leeds and Carlisle. This is not the fastest route, but it is the most direct in terms of milage. I was surprised to discover that there is no through ticket available between Alfreton and Glasgow via this route. There actually is no any permitted ticket and the only available through ticket is routed ’via Lancaster’. Interestingly this does allow going via Leeds and Lancaster. Using the forums ticket site I got tickets splitting at Hellifield, which actually saved me a considerable amount of money compared to a through ticket via Lancaster. That is an example of a more than reasonable route which can’t be done without splitting tickets.