• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Proposal to price by distance travelled (rather than market based pricing)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,569
Location
Yorkshire
I have to admit that I don't really understand the nuances of the question. But I should not have to.

If you're proposing a new pricing system you'll have to as you need to look at examples such as these to see who will gain or lose under your system. Are you going to charge more if you take a longer route? At the moment you can go direct from York to Birmingham via Leeds or Doncaster. Should these be different fares? What if you don't know in advance which you'll catch? Should you have to get the more expensive or pay a supplement on the train (and make the giard busier).

If my preferred option of a pence-per-kilometre were to be adopted on the railways then the fare for these journeys would depend only upon the distance between the two places (by the chosen route) and would be the same regardless of when you travel or when you buy the ticket.

I really don't understand why it should be more complicated than that. The current system is simply crazy, with fares ranging from ridiculously cheap to criminally expensive for the same journey depending upon when you buy the ticket.

And then the trains will be stupidly busy (oe even busier) at peak times. Unless you're going to keep the peak/off peak distinction - and then you're going to be introducing a distinction that doesn't exist for some tickets at the moment.

Whatever system you introduce there'll be winners and losers and with the companies trying to make as much as they can I'd assume that with any major change they'd push for there to be more losers.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Squaddie

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
London
The UK's rail fare structure - like so much about its rail industry - is a mess.

Rail fares should be on a pence-per-kilometre basis (perhaps with a reducing cost per kilometre as the length of journey increases). A return should cost twice as much as a single, and first class 50% more than second class.
 

wibble

Member
Joined
23 Jun 2010
Messages
615
Things will exist like that until the same body sets all the fares (and even then it may continue)

In your example, the Chorley-Manchester fare is set by First Transpennine Express, Manchester-Birmingham is set by Cross Country and Chorley-Birmingham is set by Virgin West Coast.

Even under BR's sectorisation, the same issue would've existed, except that the through fare was cheaper than splitting the journey at Manchester.

Chorley - Manchester was set by Regional Railways
Manchester - Birmingam was set by InterCity Cross Country
Chorley - Birmingham was set by InterCity West Coast

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The UK's rail fare structure - like so much about its rail industry - is a mess.

Rail fares should be on a pence-per-kilometre basis (perhaps with a reducing cost per kilometre as the length of journey increases). A return should cost twice as much as a single, and first class 50% more than second class.

It's not perfect, but the rail industry tends to price based on demand. I don't disagree with charging on a pence per km basis but you would have to discount off peak services and add a premium for First Class and/or HighSpeed services.
 

Squaddie

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
London
OK, this does crop up every so often so I am going to ask my standard questions whenever this crops up. Let's see if you can be the first to answer them :D

What price would the following journeys cost (where there are differential prices for peak/off peak, please specify. Also if you are reducing the validity or providing different routeing options that exist today, again please specify):

- Peterborough to Nottingham; (currently £19.80 CDR, £22.50 SVR, £29 SOR)
- Peterborough to Leicester; (currently N/A CDR, £18.40 SVR, £33.00 SOR)
- Cattal to Dronfield; (currently £17.20 CDR, N/A SVR, £19.90 SOR)
- Sherburn-in-Elmet to Whitby avoiding Darlington (currently £12.10 CDR, N/A SVR, N/A SOR)

Thanks :)
I have to admit that I don't really understand the nuances of the question. But I should not have to.

If my preferred option of a pence-per-kilometre were to be adopted on the railways then the fare for these journeys would depend only upon the distance between the two places (by the chosen route) and would be the same regardless of when you travel or when you buy the ticket.

I really don't understand why it should be more complicated than that. The current system is simply crazy, with fares ranging from ridiculously cheap to criminally expensive for the same journey depending upon when you buy the ticket.
 

Squaddie

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
London
It's not perfect, but the rail industry tends to price based on demand. I don't disagree with charging on a pence per km basis but you would have to discount off peak services and add a premium for First Class and/or HighSpeed services.
I disagree with discounting off-peak services, because that is pretty much how we got in this mess today. (The current situation is that the last trains of the peak period are empty while the first off-peak trains are full to bursting). Other solutions need to be found to deal with overcrowding.

Of course there would be a premium for first class - in many countries the first class fare is 50% more than the corresponding second-class fare for the journey, which I think is a reasonable premium. And introducing a supplement for high speed trains, and possibly a lower supplement for intercity trains compared with stopping services, would offer passengers the choice of price vs. journey time.

All this is, of course, just wishful thinking; it will never happen in the UK. Which is why I shall continue to refuse to pay the walk-up fares demanded in the UK and use my car, while travelling almost exclusively by train in Switzerland and the rest of Europe.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
I disagree with discounting off-peak services, because that is pretty much how we got in this mess today. (The current situation is that the last trains of the peak period are empty while the first off-peak trains are full to bursting). Other solutions need to be found to deal with overcrowding.

This. I guarantee you that this evening at Euston the 1840 to Manchester Piccadilly will be half-empty and the 1900 will be absolutely rammed.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
The UK's rail fare structure - like so much about its rail industry - is a mess.

Rail fares should be on a pence-per-kilometre basis (perhaps with a reducing cost per kilometre as the length of journey increases). A return should cost twice as much as a single, and first class 50% more than second class.

You would also have a problem with the Daily Mail readers who think that a kilometre is the invention of the devil and yet another way for Brussels to subvert Westminster into the 4th Reich under Fuhrer Angela Merkel :roll:

I'd be interested to see how your method would fit in with the routing guide too as well as the effect on peak/off-peak which could presumably be abolished and a new fare between the two. How would you fill stock in the middle of the day and after the evening rush though?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
If my preferred option of a pence-per-kilometre were to be adopted on the railways then the fare for these journeys would depend only upon the distance between the two places (by the chosen route) and would be the same regardless of when you travel or when you buy the ticket.
Okay, I will calculate the fares (using mileage.railmiles.org) - just give me your proposed rate per mile or km.

Also can you confirm you are pricing per rail distance travelled and not by actual distance?

I'll also add Tain to Golspie to that list, for an added bonus.

If you don't know what I am getting at yet, it will become clear soon.

But I need to know the rate you want to charge first!;)
 

mikeg

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2010
Messages
1,743
Location
Selby
Per Kilometre pricing = bad, bad, bad.

Sure it has a populist appeal, pay for how fare you go but it creates vast inefficiencies. For example, a rural branch line where trains typically carry about 30 people compared to a busy intercity route where the trains are nearly always full. The latter has a much lower per-passenger-kilometre cost.

Also Intercity routes would end up being far too expensive, as they would not only cost much more than they do now through the virtue of more kilometres travelled, they would be subsidising the rural and suburban commuter services at a ridiculous rate. Indeed BR had a per-passenger-mile price at one point, and it led to rural lines being a complete drain on the system's finances.

Arguably, the Beeching axe, although necessary to some extent (sorry to say that!), could perhaps have been tamed slightly by market-based pricing being introduced. The rural branch lines could have charged more, the intercity services less and the branch lines could have been saved by being more self-funding.

The present system is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than a primitive price-per-passenger-kilometre tariff.

Now, Zonal pricing is good, but the National Rail network is arguably too complex for it to be introduced nationwide, and therefore it has to be confined to certain regions. Although I believe that the Dutch single tariff is zonal, if I'm not mistaken. It's certainly a lot simpler, but remember that the Netherlands is a much smaller country than the UK (small enough for there to be no such thing as a SVR type ticket, only day returns), and has a much less complex rail system.
 
Last edited:

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
I too agree that a price-per-km system would be bad, as it would, in my view, drive people back towards the car and plane for London-Scotland (and similar/longer length) flows :)

Now, Zonal pricing is good, but the National Rail network is arguably too complex for it to be introduced nationwide, and therefore it has to be confined to certain regions.

In reality, it's never going to happen, but this is my preferred model for rail travel.

My vision would be that 'hub' cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow etc would each have a (roughly circular) zonal system which then overlapped with ones of neighbouring cities, much like London's is currently but on a much larger scale. Then the fare charged would depend on how many 'zones' passed through, with a larger fare increase if leaving one city's zone to go to another's, compared with passing through two zones centred on the same city.

You would also be able to get point-to-point Advance tickets between hub cities, and then add on zones as required.

Again, it would never happen, and would require our fares system to be overhauled from the ground up, but I think this would be a better system that pricing per mile :)
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Rail fares should be on a pence-per-kilometre basis (perhaps with a reducing cost per kilometre as the length of journey increases). A return should cost twice as much as a single, and first class 50% more than second class.

Why not take how modern the average age of the trains used on the route you're travelling on in to consideration as well?

I'd disagree about a single being 50% of a return because that would mean no-one would buy returns. I'd suggest 60% with the introduction of an overnight return i.e. return the next day.
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,713
Location
South London
Pricing by distance is a bad idea. York to Whitby is nearly 86m by rail, half that in terms of straight line distance.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Pricing by distance is a bad idea. York to Whitby is nearly 86m by rail, half that in terms of straight line distance.

Manchester to the Mid Cheshire line is another. It would mean the combined train and tram tickets (to change between rail and Metrolink at Altrincham) would be a lot cheaper than a ticket for travelling on the rail service via Stockport.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
If you priced by distance then it would likely calculated using the longest permitted route so it may end up more expensive then you expect it to be.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
As I have said before I am all for a distance based system - but per mile please ;) - and have advocated the German system which overlays an advance fare option for long distance travel, cheaper travel on regional/local trains (as opposed to Inter City) and an overall maximum fare.

I even answered yorkie's question on pricing Grantham to Nottingham/Leicester ticket but received no feedback :(


My vision would be that 'hub' cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow etc would each have a (roughly circular) zonal system which then overlapped with ones of neighbouring cities, much like London's is currently but on a much larger scale. Then the fare charged would depend on how many 'zones' passed through, with a larger fare increase if leaving one city's zone to go to another's, compared with passing through two zones centred on the same city.

You would also be able to get point-to-point Advance tickets between hub cities, and then add on zones as required.

That is basically the system in Denmark but without (unless introduced recently) the advance option.
 
Last edited:

Squaddie

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
London
Okay, I will calculate the fares (using mileage.railmiles.org) - just give me your proposed rate per mile or km.

Also can you confirm you are pricing per rail distance travelled and not by actual distance?

I'll also add Tain to Golspie to that list, for an added bonus.

If you don't know what I am getting at yet, it will become clear soon.

But I need to know the rate you want to charge first!;)
I have no idea what the rate would be: why should I? I'm just proposing an alternative to the current fare structure.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
My vision would be that 'hub' cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow etc would each have a (roughly circular) zonal system which then overlapped with ones of neighbouring cities, much like London's is currently but on a much larger scale. Then the fare charged would depend on how many 'zones' passed through, with a larger fare increase if leaving one city's zone to go to another's, compared with passing through two zones centred on the same city.

Pros and cons for all systems. For example, in a zonal system, how would you price the journeys around a circular route in an outer zone, such as the Overground, but imagine that it is around Zone 6, which covers a much greater distance? It will all be within one zone. I would argue that the current fare on the Overground if you travel all the way round from Stratford to Clapham Junction is way too cheap. The fares structure currently in place in London is such that travel via the city centre levies a premium, albeit covering a much shorter distance. Do you propose the same thing with the regions? The various routeing options are no better than the current system at being simple.

Furthermore TfL fares are heavily subsidised, what happens in the regions where there is a much lower level of subsidy? Zonal pricing is a great idea, however that's all it is, an idea. Apart from in heavily urbanised areas that is very city-centric, I can't see where it can realistically work. What about the rural branch lines?

I don't want the current system changed. As the old saying has it: "better the devil you know". Of course I say this because I can (just about) get my head around it. My fear is that whatever new system is introduced, there will be massive fare hikes across board, and judging by past performance, I am not too hopeful of the government being able to stand up to them for the travelling public either.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
Pros and cons for all systems. For example, in a zonal system, how would you price the journeys around a circular route in an outer zone, such as the Overground, but imagine that it is around Zone 6, which covers a much greater distance? It will all be within one zone. I would argue that the current fare on the Overground if you travel all the way round from Stratford to Clapham Junction is way too cheap. The fares structure currently in place in London is such that travel via the city centre levies a premium, albeit covering a much shorter distance. Do you propose the same thing with the regions? The various routeing options are no better than the current system at being simple.

Furthermore TfL fares are heavily subsidised, what happens in the regions where there is a much lower level of subsidy? Zonal pricing is a great idea, however that's all it is, an idea. Apart from in heavily urbanised areas that is very city-centric, I can't see where it can realistically work. What about the rural branch lines?

I don't want the current system changed. As the old saying has it: "better the devil you know". Of course I say this because I can (just about) get my head around it. My fear is that whatever new system is introduced, there will be massive fare hikes across board, and judging by past performance, I am not too hopeful of the government being able to stand up to them for the travelling public either.

Totally agree with you that there are significant cons to the system I proposed (it's more a vision of how I'd like it to be basing it on the success of London than a realistic idea :) ) - and as I say, it will never happen, it would cost too much to implement and, as you point out, would probably create a considerable amount of anomalies! :)
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I'd disagree about a single being 50% of a return because that would mean no-one would buy returns.

Why do you need period returns anyway? If we only have single tickets then it will be easier to mix-and-match in the most economical way. I am fully for scrapping return fares, as long as single fares are slashed to 50% of return fares.

I'd suggest 60% with the introduction of an overnight return i.e. return the next day.

I do agree with this. I think a special deal can be done for day returns, priced at say 1.5 x single fare, and maybe a next day return at 1.8 x single fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Totally agree with you that there are significant cons to the system I proposed (it's more a vision of how I'd like it to be basing it on the success of London than a realistic idea :) ) - and as I say, it will never happen, it would cost too much to implement and, as you point out, would probably create a considerable amount of anomalies! :)

Birmingham might actually be more suitable than many other cities for a zonal pricing structure, as it is more 'hub and spokes' than the others, with not much going in the circular direction for a certain distance around the city centre. This is what I thought Centro has done based on the zones of the Daytripper.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Are you going to charge more if you take a longer route? At the moment you can go direct from York to Birmingham via Leeds or Doncaster. Should these be different fares? What if you don't know in advance which you'll catch? Should you have to get the more expensive or pay a supplement on the train (and make the giard busier).

If you don't know in advance then, by definition, you want the walk up fare. Then bear in mind that a single is half a return under the mileage system, so no need to buy until you are certain which train you want. You arrive at York and there is a train via Leeds in 10 mins @ say £35, or there is a train via Doncaster in 40 mins @ say £33. You pay your money and make you choice.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I have no idea what the rate would be: why should I? I'm just proposing an alternative to the current fare structure.

I think yorkie's only trying to make a point. Let's just make up an arbitrary figure of 20p/mile so he can make his point.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well, this was the fare structure for the first 100 years or so of railways - the cheapest fares were penny-a-mile singles (right from the 1820s into the 1930s). Now something like that, but allowing for inflation (say 20p/mile or 5p/¼ mile) has advantages in terms of simplicity, but falls down in the face of real travel habits. Firstly, as plenty of people have mentioned, that means that lines with a relatively poor passenger/cost ratio suddenly become much less profitable. Secondly, and this is the important one, this would allow lots more people to make cheap peak-time journeys, so stock would end up earning most of its revenue in these short periods and run around almost empty throughout the day - there would be nothing to encourage passengers to travel off-peak. With massive overcrowding and then empty trains, companies may as well send their stock off to the depot through the day, with only a token off-peak service, then get it out again in the evening. What a waste of stock and resources!
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
I think yorkie's only trying to make a point. Let's just make up an arbitrary figure of 20p/mile so he can make his point.

You're right - lets see it again :D

In a real system though, the rate per mile tapers the further you go - much as what happens with a taxi. So it could be, say, 30p/mile for the first 10 miles, 25p for 10-20 miles, 20p for 20-50 miles, 17p for 50-100 miles and so on.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
much as what happens with a taxi. So it could be, say, 30p/mile for the first 10 miles, 25p for 10-20 miles, 20p for 20-50 miles, 17p for 50-100 miles and so on.
Actually in taxis in London once the fare gets to £16.20 you get less distance/time for each 20p.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,569
Location
Yorkshire
If you don't know in advance then, by definition, you want the walk up fare. Then bear in mind that a single is half a return under the mileage system, so no need to buy until you are certain which train you want. You arrive at York and there is a train via Leeds in 10 mins @ say £35, or there is a train via Doncaster in 40 mins @ say £33. You pay your money and make you choice.

But presumably you have problems if you can't buy your ticket on time. And suppose you miss a connection and the next train takes a different route?

And engineering work ticket prices could be a nightmare! Do you charge extra if the train goes a longer route? What if some trains go that longer route anyway - if you don't charge for the longer route then some people will pay less than they normally would - in fact it might be worth buying a ticket for a station further away than the one you're going to...but only when there's engineering work on!
 

Magicake

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
119
[QUOTE="Zoe]Actually in taxis in London once the fare gets to £16.20 you get less distance/time for each 20p.[/QUOTE]

I can just see people getting out of the taxi paying the driver and then getting straight back in again once the meter reaches £16...
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,569
Location
Yorkshire
I have no idea what the rate would be: why should I? I'm just proposing an alternative to the current fare structure.

Seems an odd proposal - an idea to radically change the fare structure but with no way to work out if any given ticket will cost more or less.

You seem to have ignored all the other points people have made.

There's no *just* about it.

Whilst on the surface a per-mile system seems very fare it only really works on a small non-complex system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I can just see people getting out of the taxi paying the driver and then getting straight back in again once the meter reaches £16...

Could you ask for a split fare in advance? :)

More seriously trainis aren't the only type of transport with complex fares structures - they're just more obvious.

There'll be plenty of planes where it's cheaper to go to a more distant destination but most people don't usually check that and only travel by air infrequently.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Actually in taxis in London once the fare gets to £16.20 you get less distance/time for each 20p.
Does that mean it's cheaper to "split"? If so, is it valid to get back in the same taxi and do you have to get off & on? Or do you have to take a different taxi? It would also be good if they did Delay Repay instead of Delay PayMore!<(:lol: (Perhaps taxi drivers should be exempt from claiming under Delay Repay? Sounds fair to me ;))

I think yorkie's only trying to make a point. Let's just make up an arbitrary figure of 20p/mile so he can make his point.

OK we'll go with 20p/mile.

I'll also only compare return tickets, as most people wish to return.

I'll ignore the following:
- Proposal to charge less for rural lines. Charging less for rural lines is a form of market-based pricing (which I agree with), in reality you could combine distance-based and market-based pricing, but then it ceases to be as "simple" as the OP wants it to be. And it's also an admission from people who are pro-mileage that their system is flawed, in my view. Plus how do you determine which lines are rural?
- Proposal to charge less for longer distances. Again, this is edging slightly toward market based pricing, and adds further complexity.

- Peterborough to Nottingham; (currently £19.80 CDR, £22.50 SVR, £29 SOR)
This is (just under) 52 miles
A return would therefore be £20.80
This is a reduction in price for anyone who is travelling at peak times, but a marginal (but quite acceptable - given additional flexibility) increase for someone returning same day off peak.
In this example, I do not see a problem.
But, PBO - NOT is (or was, when I last checked) valid via Leicester, and the pricing above assumes travel via Grantham. So, would people be charged a lot more to go via Leicester? Or, do you say that, as the price is the same, it's valid that way with the additional mileage between Leicester and Nottingham being free?

- Peterborough to Leicester; (currently N/A CDR, £18.40 SVR, £33.00 SOR)
This is (just over) 52 miles
A return would therefore be £20.80
An acceptable increase for off peak day trippers, given a decrease in flexibility and a reasonable decrease too for peak time travel.
The railway line zig-zags a lot on this route, and customers are penalised for that, but as the fares are so high in the first place it doesn't matter too much.

- Cattal to Dronfield; (currently £17.20 CDR, N/A SVR, £19.90 SOR)
This is approx 63.5 miles
A return would therefore be £25.40, which makes rail unviable. People would simply drive down the A1 instead, which would be a lot cheaper and also quicker.

- Sherburn-in-Elmet to Whitby
avoiding Darlington (currently £12.10 CDR, N/A SVR, N/A SOR)
This is (just under) 99 miles
A return would therefore be £39.60
Rail is now completely priced out of the market. The Whitby line would be set to close. Coastliner would completely dominate the York area to Whitby market. The bus would not only be massively cheaper but also quicker too!

- Tain to Golspie (Currently £17.50)

This is 40 miles.
A return would therefore be £16.00
Rail has already priced itself out of the market. When we went to Golspie in 2006, we got a taxi from Tain to Golspie. The taxi took about 1/5th of the time of the train, and cost far less too! This system continues to ensure rail is priced out of this market, as the road bridge is far shorter.

York to London (various fares from £88.90 SSR to £239 SOR)
This is 186 miles.
A return would therefore be £74.40, so you can travel at any time, returning whenever you want, for less than the current price of the SSR. Severe overcrowding will result at off-peak times. The route would generate much less revenue and would require subsidy rather than generating a profit. Many peak additionals would have to operate but the off peak service would have to be cut back. This would actually be good for customers in many ways!

So, York to London would be far too cheap, but York to Whitby is so expensive people would simply drive or take the bus and the line would have to close east of Middlesbrough.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Actually in taxis in London once the fare gets to £16.20 you get less distance/time for each 20p.

Fair enough, I never use taxis in London.



But presumably you have problems if you can't buy your ticket on time. And suppose you miss a connection and the next train takes a different route?

And engineering work ticket prices could be a nightmare! Do you charge extra if the train goes a longer route? What if some trains go that longer route anyway - if you don't charge for the longer route then some people will pay less than they normally would - in fact it might be worth buying a ticket for a station further away than the one you're going to...but only when there's engineering work on!

Don't really understand what the first point has to do with mileage based pricing..

If you miss your connection, the same situation would apply as now - continue on the first available train which would get you to your destination without penalty.

Engineering work is far more of a problem here than in most countries, in my experience, but if a train is diverted I would expect the non-diverted price to apply.



Whilst on the surface a per-mile system seems very fare it only really works on a small non-complex system.

I would not call the German rail system small and non-complex.
 
Last edited:

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
York to London (various fares from £88.90 SSR to £239 SOR)
This is 186 miles.
A return would therefore be £74.40, so you can travel at any time, returning whenever you want, for less than the current price of the SSR. Severe overcrowding will result at off-peak times. The route would generate much less revenue and would require subsidy rather than generating a profit. Many peak additionals would have to operate but the off peak service would have to be cut back. This would actually be good for customers in many ways!

And there you run into Welwyn. Sorry, but the line is full during the peaks (remember this also affects everywhere in Scotland, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire). Without some means of spreading things out, start thinking about platform lengthening and building accross the road at King's Cross. 91s can handle 12+DVT, and this would be just about OK for 1,000 seats with FGW-style airline seating (maybe another 200 standing). As for the off-peak, one semi-fast Della per hour might be enough to cope.

Also, if you take up all the peak-time paths, what about commuters from Hitchin? On the A1, I'm afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top