Will operator restrictions persist into the GBR era?

[Gaelan]

An interesting question for speculation: once the GBR transition takes place and the railway has centrally set fares under one brand, will we still have fares that are restricted to a given TOC/operator/"brand"? (Excepting open-access operators, of course.)

I suppose it depends in part on what purpose the current operator restriction serves:

• If it's to commercially undercut another operator, there's no real reason for these to remain, except for sheer inertia
• If it's to make one route cheaper than another, these could be changed to "(not) via x" route restrictions.
• If it's to make travel via slow services cheaper, these could be changed to something like "local services only" - I don't think there's anything like this on the current network, though I expect there might have been in the BR era.

What I'm most hoping for is that we'll lose the operator restrictions on advance tickets, so any reasonable connecting route can be used to make up delays.

 

[zwk500]

If anybody knows the answer to this, they're probably not allowed to say. Much about GBR remains to be confirmed, not least because it has to go through the wringer of Parliament first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

DB does Advance type delays best - stamp it "Zugbindung aufgehoben" and it effectively becomes a Flexpreis ticket.

I can see a sense in having some differentiation to broaden markets in some cases. You can do Chiltern as route High Wycombe, but for LNR it's a bit harder as the route of the Crewe is wholly common with that of Avanti. "Local services only" or "not InterCity" might do there.

 

[zwk500]

DB does Advance type delays best - stamp it "Zugbindung aufgehoben" and it effectively becomes a Flexpreis ticket.

I can see a sense in having some differentiation to broaden markets in some cases. You can do Chiltern as route High Wycombe, but for LNR it's a bit harder as the route of the Crewe is wholly common with that of Avanti. "Local services only" or "not InterCity" might do there.

Realistically, you've got 4 maybe 5 lines where this is relevant - the MML, ECML, WCML and GWML, with the GEML an arguable case. On all but the GWML sorting by TOC does OK, but on the GWML it's not quite as clean (route 'non stop to Reading only' anybody?)

Ideally, GBR would bring in proper Train categories, with Local, Regional, and IC trains (I'd like numbers as well but that's a tetchy subject) so that ticketing can still have some elements of market segmentation without being overcomplicated.

What I'm most hoping for is that we'll lose the operator restrictions on advance tickets, so any reasonable connecting route can be used to make up delays.

This could of course be solved by change to existing policy without needing to do away with operator restrictions completely ('If you have been delayed by 15 minutes or more, you may board the next available service')

 

[WAB]

An interesting question for speculation: once the GBR transition takes place and the railway has centrally set fares under one brand, will we still have fares that are restricted to a given TOC/operator/"brand"? (Excepting open-access operators, of course.)

There is a desire to simplify, but that doesn't seem to translate into different parts of the railway compromising on their demands. However, getting rid of operator specific fares would be revenue-neutral so an easy win.

I suppose it depends in part on what purpose the current operator restriction serves:

• If it's to commercially undercut another operator, there's no real reason for these to remain, except for sheer inertia

Yes, particularly those fares where they are there to game the RSP and journey planners with only a slight discount.

• If it's to make one route cheaper than another, these could be changed to "(not) via x" route restrictions.

However, doing it by brand may be simpler than by via point for passengers not familiar with the rail network.

• If it's to make travel via slow services cheaper, these could be changed to something like "local services only" - I don't think there's anything like this on the current network, though I expect there might have been in the BR era.

Yes, I understand there were 'not InterCity' tickets. But again, by brand will be easier for the passenger than by service type.

What I'm most hoping for is that we'll lose the operator restrictions on advance tickets, so any reasonable connecting route can be used to make up delays.

Yes, I think this would be a great advancement for little cost to the railway (maybe keeping the regional -Intercity split if needed).

 

[Trainbike46]

There is a desire to simplify, but that doesn't seem to translate into different parts of the railway compromising on their demands. However, getting rid of operator specific fares would be revenue-neutral so an easy win.

Yes, particularly those fares where they are there to game the RSP and journey planners with only a slight discount.

However, doing it by brand may be simpler than by via point for passengers not familiar with the rail network.

Yes, I understand there were 'not InterCity' tickets. But again, by brand will be easier for the passenger than by service type.

Yes, I think this would be a great advancement for little cost to the railway (maybe keeping the regional -Intercity split if needed).

The point appears to be though, that it is possible that under GBR, (most) passenger facing brands may disappear. If that happens, then operator specific fares are either impossible or highly confusing.

For Advance fares, operator restrictions are rather unnecesary, if you're bound to a specific itinerary anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point appears to be though, that it is possible that under GBR, (most) passenger facing brands may disappear. If that happens, then operator specific fares are either impossible or highly confusing.

For Advance fares, operator restrictions are rather unnecesary, if you're bound to a specific itinerary anyway

Is there a nationalised railway anywhere in the world that doesn't have service brands like IC and regional? Those are your potential basis for it. BR had them too, indeed BR invented InterCity!

 

[WAB]

The point appears to be though, that it is possible that under GBR, (most) passenger facing brands may disappear. If that happens, then operator specific fares are either impossible or highly confusing.

That remains to be seen. If we're keeping these National Rail contracts in the background, then unless there is a single contact centre/point of information for passengers, there will still need to be some public differentiation. Perhaps more like London Buses, where branding is London Buses with small operator logos?

 

[Trainbike46]

Is there a nationalised railway anywhere in the world that doesn't have service brands like IC and regional? Those are your potential basis for it. BR had them too, indeed BR invented InterCity!

It is absolutely possible to introduce restrictions such as InterCity / Not InterCity, assuming that GBR (re)introduces the InterCity branding

But yeah, the whole thread is clearly speculative and the answer will depend on what choices GBR makes

That remains to be seen. If we're keeping these National Rail contracts in the background, then unless there is a single contact centre/point of information for passengers, there will still need to be some public differentiation. Perhaps more like London Buses, where branding is London Buses with small operator logos?

Relying on the small branding like the one used on london buses for ticket restrictions would be potentially rather confusing though. Definitely more confusing than geographic route restrictions

 

[JonathanH]

One of the first things that Grant Shapes said about GBR was that ‘Our new deal for rail demands more for passengers. It will simplify people’s journeys, ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company’.

While he may not be leading the emergence of GBR now, the policy direction was pretty clear.

 

[RailWonderer]

I think the WCML, despite being the same way under BR, could go the way of GWR and LNER and remove IC/regional fares and have one single fare more expensive than the LNR only, TPE only and Chiltern via High Wycombe but cheaper than the current any permitted fares. The only reason I can think of to keep the status quo under GBR would be to even out congestion on the Pendolinos by keeping the different fare levels on the WCML.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the WCML, despite being the same way under BR, could go the way of GWR and LNER and remove IC/regional fares and have one single fare more expensive than the LNR only, TPE only and Chiltern via High Wycombe but cheaper than the current any permitted fares. The only reason I can think of to keep the status quo under GBR would be to even out congestion on the Pendolinos by keeping the different fare levels on the WCML.

The obvious thing is for all fares between London and Birmingham to be set in a consistent manner in readiness for HS2, so that HS2 becomes the way almost all passengers travel between London and Birmingham, increasing capacity at the intermediate stations.