Stopping Short

[bb21]

A ticket to York on the 15:00 to Newcastle should not cost more than a ticket to Newcastle on the 15:00 to Newcastle (Assuming for the sake of argument both tickets are booked at the same time, obviously). The end. If fixing that causes a disadvantage to consumers then so be it, IMHO.

For that system to work, all stations en route should have an Advance fare. The alternative is that none of them does, assuming that Advance fares are quite heavily discounted, in order that anomalies do not occur.

Will it work? Possibly with Intercity-type operations, but it could sound the death knell of Advance fares on flows such as Leeds - Nottingham.

 

[Goatboy]

For that system to work, all stations en route should have an Advance fare. The alternative is that none of them does, assuming that Advance fares are quite heavily discounted, in order that anomalies do not occur.

Will it work? Possibly with Intercity-type operations, but it could sound the death knell of Advance fares on flows such as Leeds - Nottingham.

It's not an issue for IC journeys I agree. The easy way round it on routes like Leeds to Nottingham is to simply not care about stopping short. Job done.

 

[bb21]

It's not an issue for IC journeys I agree. The easy way round it on routes like Leeds to Nottingham is to simply not care about stopping short. Job done.

I am of the opinion that revenue will likely take at least a moderate hit, if not a massive one, if BoJ is permitted on Advance fares are permitted and this fact is advertised and well-known without revising fares upwards. I won't go into details here as to why (partly because I am on a train and don't have the time to).

Of course the real impact on revenue is somewhat unpredictable. There is a stable part of revenue, and a "volatile" part. The tricky bit is accurately predicting which is which. For example, if Nottingham - Leeds Advances, at £7, allow BoJ, then people doing shorter journeys for which Advance fares are not available and walk-on fares are higher, for example Alfreton - Sheffield, may take-up the whole quota. Now what happens to those people who would have bought these £7 fares to travel Nottingham - Leeds had BoJ not been permitted? They might still travel thereby paying the even-higher walk-on fare Nottingham - Leeds at £22.40. They might not travel at all which means Northern lose on those passengers who went Alfreton - Sheffield and those who would have made the Nottingham - Leeds journey.

This is for sure a grossly simplified picture of the dynamics but getting the balance right is pretty important. Because of this element of uncertainly I am inclined to believe that the TOCs will likely want to build into their pricing a margin for errors in their models thereby increasing prices disproportionally overall.

Maybe I am just the forever pessimist.

 

[AndyLandy]

Say that advance tickets are priced so that customers from London will pay up to £20 for a ticket to Peterborough, £50 for a ticket to York, but at most £40 for a ticket to Newcastle.

How many places have pricing structures that look like this? Last time I looked, Virgin's AP fares follow the same pattern where they are slightly more expensive the further you travel. If you compare the cost of a VDS Advance from Euston along the WCML, prices get progressively higher the further you travel.

I guess you have the issue where an AP fare isn't available (Waterloo-Southampton) but is available further out (Brockenhurst and beyond), but does any TOC offer a cheaper AP fare for a destination further out?

 

[Deerfold]

How many places have pricing structures that look like this? Last time I looked, Virgin's AP fares follow the same pattern where they are slightly more expensive the further you travel. If you compare the cost of a VDS Advance from Euston along the WCML, prices get progressively higher the further you travel.

I guess you have the issue where an AP fare isn't available (Waterloo-Southampton) but is available further out (Brockenhurst and beyond), but does any TOC offer a cheaper AP fare for a destination further out?

They're remarkably common where (as you say) APs aren't available - Cheapest Fare Manchester to Huddersfield is £11.60 single, but Manchester-Leeds advances at £6 are easy to find on many trains. You could undercut a lot of commuter flows with APs to places further out.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....So the point is that Virgin didn't lose any money on the price of the ticket as per half your argument!....

Don't they? According to NRES, at the time of this post, the 08:20 from Euston on Saturday 02/11/13 has an Advance ticket to Manchester for £38. If I wanted a ticket to Manchester that would legitimately allow me to end my journey at Stockport, should I wish to do so, it would cost £76.30. How much would the railway lose if I buy the Advance ticket to Manchester and get off at Stockport anyway?

....I can assure you they were not turning people away at Stockport station because there was no room to sell people tickets for the Stockport to Manchester leg of my train....

Irrelevant.

....And since when did it matter if my seat was empty or taken for that leg....

It only matters in respect of what you agreed to by paying the fare, in exchange for a cheaper fare.

....If fixing that causes a disadvantage to consumers then so be it, IMHO....

....I appreciate the arguments against 'distance based pricing' but as far as the same train is concerned, the further you go on any particular train the more you should pay.

You should work for ATOC........

 

[sheff1]

TOCs may choose to offer a better price from A-E than from A-D because passengers travelling to E have a lower propensity to pay. They then need to have some way of ensuring that people who buy the service of being conveyed to E do not fraudulently use a more expensive service, of being conveyed to D instead. And this is done by adding break of journey rules.

But in the case here the fares to Manchester and Stockport are the same, so where is the fraud in using the same priced service but getting off 10 mins sooner ?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Don't they? According to NRES, at the time of this post, the 08:20 from Euston on Saturday 02/11/13 has an Advance ticket to Manchester for £38. If I wanted a ticket to Manchester that would legitimately allow me to end my journey at Stockport, should I wish to do so, it would cost £76.30. How much would the railway lose if I buy the Advance ticket to Manchester and get off at Stockport anyway?


Irrelevant.


It only matters in respect of what you agreed to by paying the fare, in exchange for a cheaper fare.



You should work for ATOC........

Or I could have bought the Advance ticket to Stockport at exactly the same price which legitimately lets me get off at Stockport?



I thought the point was the loss of revenue? It is therefore relevant.

 

[aleph_0]

Apologies if I am being slow but I am confused by this bit.

Firstly are you assuming that there are Advance fares between A and B in the first place?

Secondly are you able to elaborate a bit more on the second sentence please as I just cannot get my head around what it is that you were trying to say?

Yes, I was. I understand things are complicated, and can see how there might be an argument that advance fares aren't worthwhile on shorter routes.

Sorry, it was badly phrased. A concrete hypothetical example, A=Birmingham, B=Newcastle, C=Edinburgh, X=Virgin, Y=CrossCountry. CrossCountry trains might decide to undercut Virgin on the Birmingham-Edinburgh flow, advanced fares at £10 with Crosscountry, £50 with Virgin), but keep advance tickets more expensive on the Birmingham-Newcastle flow (say, £80).

If we allow stopping short, CrossCountry will put up their Birmingham-Edinburgh prices, loosing some customers to Virgin trains. They might decide to change both Birmingham flows to £40, thus still undercutting Virgin on the Edinburgh flow, but to a lesser extent. Overall, the railways gain revenue, even if CrossCountry lose.

I can see how people can have both opinions. If one sees the railways as selling a service of transporting you from A to B, then not stopping short makes complete sense, when a ToC tries to maximize revenue. It also makes sense that with ToCs competing, this might not maximize revenue for the railways overall. I currently sit on the fence slightly, but do feel that some current pricing feels 'unfair'.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Will it work? Possibly with Intercity-type operations, but it could sound the death knell of Advance fares on flows such as Leeds - Nottingham.

Advance fares are available between Newcastle and Carlisle, and at most intermediate stations too. They're certainly available between Newcastle and Hexham, which is the main intermediate station.

Besides which, Northern only brought in AP fares between Nottingham and Leeds because an AP fare "XC & connections" was introduced, undercutting Northern and depriving them of revenue.

Don't they? According to NRES, at the time of this post, the 08:20 from Euston on Saturday 02/11/13 has an Advance ticket to Manchester for £38. If I wanted a ticket to Manchester that would legitimately allow me to end my journey at Stockport, should I wish to do so, it would cost £76.30. How much would the railway lose if I buy the Advance ticket to Manchester and get off at Stockport anyway?

The same amount as if I have a minging hangover and decide not to travel at all: £0.00.

For that system to work, all stations en route should have an Advance fare. The alternative is that none of them does, assuming that Advance fares are quite heavily discounted, in order that anomalies do not occur.

There is no reason why a TOC cannot set an AP fare for each station they routinely call at on AP flows.

If they sell AP tickets on the 1300 Nottingham to Leeds for through passengers, there's no reason why they can't for passengers only going to Alfreton. Indeed, on most flows the TOC that sets an AP ticket would make more money than on a SDS after ORCATS has divvied it out.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Or I could have bought the Advance ticket to Stockport at exactly the same price which legitimately lets me get off at Stockport?...

But not Manchester.:roll:

I thought the point was the loss of revenue? It is therefore relevant.

People queuing up (or not) at Stockport, for 'walk-up' tickets for one of the many services to Manchester, will be queuing up (or not) for 'walk-up' tickets for one of the many services to Manchester regardless of whether you had bought a ticket at all, never mind what ticket type it was or what the destination was, so it is irrelevant in terms of the loss to the company through you illegitimately stopping short on an Advance ticket.

More relevant would be the potential loss of someone not being able to buy an Advance ticket (because you bought it) and not being able to afford the £76.30 fare meaning they don't travel, but even this is hypothesis and therefore not a sufficiently provable loss.

 

[MikeWh]

More relevant would be the potential loss of someone not being able to buy an Advance ticket (because you bought it) and not being able to afford the £76.30 fare meaning they don't travel, but even this is hypothesis and therefore not a sufficiently provable loss.

But as I understand it, once you have bought an advance ticket for London to Stockport, the only part of the journey which might still have your seat available is Stockport to Manchester, and that only has walk-up fares. So whether you buy to Stockport or Manchester you've still taken from the quota for that train, so no-one else would be able to buy that seat again anyway. Which may well be why the price is the same to either.

 

[Tetchytyke]

More relevant would be the potential loss of someone not being able to buy an Advance ticket (because you bought it) and not being able to afford the £76.30 fare meaning they don't travel, but even this is hypothesis and therefore not a sufficiently provable loss.

By that logic the TOC should be sending me a bill for £76 if I decide to stop at home, or if I decide to get a lift instead, or if I miss the train because I spent too long fannying around in Harrods.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how stopping short by getting off half way is different to stopping short by never getting on the train in the first place. In both instances I've not occupied the seat I've paid for and "prevented" someone else buying it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

But as I understand it, once you have bought an advance ticket for London to Stockport, the only part of the journey which might still have your seat available is Stockport to Manchester, and that only has walk-up fares. So whether you buy to Stockport or Manchester you've still taken from the quota for that train, so no-one else would be able to buy that seat again anyway. Which may well be why the price is the same to either.

I'll try to explain as simply as I can.........

If the Op wanted the option of Manchester or Stockport, they should have bought the Off-Peak Single, leaving an Advance quota free for someone else.

I hope that was clear enough.

By that logic the TOC should be sending me a bill for £76 if I decide to stop at home, or if I decide to get a lift instead, or if I miss the train because I spent too long fannying around in Harrods....

Why?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If I stop at home, I've "stolen" the allocation from someone else who "might" have bought the ticket instead.

If I travel and get off at Stockport, I've "stolen" the allocation from someone else who "might" have bought the ticket instead.

I'm struggling to see the difference here.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Oh I see, there isn't one as far as I know.

 

[MikeWh]

Oh I see, there isn't one as far as I know.

Halleluyah!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Come again.:neutral:

 

[Deerfold]

There is no reason why a TOC cannot set an AP fare for each station they routinely call at on AP flows.

True, but as they don't presumably there's a reason for this.
Presumably they don't think it makes financial sense for them to do that.

If they sell AP tickets on the 1300 Nottingham to Leeds for through passengers, there's no reason why they can't for passengers only going to Alfreton. Indeed, on most flows the TOC that sets an AP ticket would make more money than on a SDS after ORCATS has divvied it out.

I've used the AP fares between Nottingham and Leeds. If it hadn't have existed I'd have got a coach.

I can't get the coach from Nottingham to Lagnley Mill or Dronfield so Northern aren't trying to compete with them (or other rail companies).

If I buy the AP fare to Leeds and get off early I've paid less than I would for a ticket to Dronfield. If Northern wanted to offer advance fares to Dronfield, presumably they'd show up in the booking engines.

How have Northern not lost out on the difference between a single to Dronfield and the cost of your Advance to somewhere else?

 

[Goatboy]

I am of the opinion that revenue will likely take at least a moderate hit, if not a massive one, if BoJ is permitted on Advance fares are permitted and this fact is advertised and well-known without revising fares upwards.

Then revise the fares upwards.

Some of the advance purchase fares offered are ridiculously cheap. They are so cheap that you could likely increase them by perhaps 50% without affecting demand on that route. London to Birmingham for £7.50 is ridiculous. I bet there is not a single person who wouldnt travel if the same ticket was 50% more expensive. It is infact a complete farce that you can travel such a journey for £7.50 when the cheapest single for a 17 minute 6 mile journey from Malvern Link to Worcester is £5 on equally empty trains.

Overhaul the advance fare system. Set the prices so ending the journey (Not BoJ - once you get off, your journey ends, wherever you are) makes no real odds to anyone and is therefore permissable.

Re: the Southampton situation. Yes, there are AP's from Bournemouth not from Southampton. This is wrong. If there is sufficient excess capacity on a train from Bournemouth to London that you can flog cheapo advance tickets, there is sufficient capacity from Southampton to London to offer the same, as it's exactly the same train. If there isn't sufficient capacity from Southampton to London, then there isn't sufficient capacity from Bournemouth either.

Once a system makes since, people will support it. The reason so many people think it's wrong that it costs more money, booked 2 months in advance, to travel from London to Stockport on a London to Manchester train than it does to remain on the train and travel to Manchester is becuase it is wrong. It is pathetic, nonsensical, and until we sort it out we'll continue to have this debate.

 

[bb21]

Sorry, it was badly phrased. A concrete hypothetical example, A=Birmingham, B=Newcastle, C=Edinburgh, X=Virgin, Y=CrossCountry. CrossCountry trains might decide to undercut Virgin on the Birmingham-Edinburgh flow, advanced fares at £10 with Crosscountry, £50 with Virgin), but keep advance tickets more expensive on the Birmingham-Newcastle flow (say, £80).

Yes, I see what you mean now.

If we allow stopping short, CrossCountry will put up their Birmingham-Edinburgh prices, loosing some customers to Virgin trains. They might decide to change both Birmingham flows to £40, thus still undercutting Virgin on the Edinburgh flow, but to a lesser extent. Overall, the railways gain revenue, even if CrossCountry lose.

The dynamics may be difficult to model, since those people who travelled on £10 tickets may not return at all now that the price has gone up substantially, so the railway on the whole may lose. Nevertheless as I said in an earlier post, this can be difficult to predict so striking the balance may take a substantial amount of time.

I can see how people can have both opinions. If one sees the railways as selling a service of transporting you from A to B, then not stopping short makes complete sense, when a ToC tries to maximize revenue. It also makes sense that with ToCs competing, this might not maximize revenue for the railways overall. I currently sit on the fence slightly, but do feel that some current pricing feels 'unfair'.

This is certainly one way to understand the system, and one I am happy to agree with. To those people that lose out on the cheap deals, it certainly can be perceived as being "unfair".

By that logic the TOC should be sending me a bill for £76 if I decide to stop at home, or if I decide to get a lift instead, or if I miss the train because I spent too long fannying around in Harrods.

If you consider a ticket as buying you a seat for a particular distance, then yes that would be a logical conclusion.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how stopping short by getting off half way is different to stopping short by never getting on the train in the first place. In both instances I've not occupied the seat I've paid for and "prevented" someone else buying it.

Look at it from another perspective. You have paid for a service - to be transported from A to B. If you do not use that service, then it is understandable that there is no penalty. If you use the service going from A to B, then you have used what you paid for, so that is also fine.

However if you use a service going from A to C, then that is not a service you paid for. You paid for a service from A to B, not to C, so you have not paid for the service you used.

Unlike some people, I don't believe that there is a right or wrong between the two interpretations, just pointing out that you can reach different conclusions depending on the angle from which you approach the question, both of which are logical.

Oh I see, there isn't one as far as I know.

There can be. See above.

Then revise the fares upwards.

I am not sure that I would be too happy with that, but I am inclined to agree that selected fares on the network do certainly have some "upward mobility" potential.

Overhaul the advance fare system. Set the prices so ending the journey (Not BoJ - once you get off, your journey ends, wherever you are) makes no real odds to anyone and is therefore permissable.

That is certainly one way to put this argument to bed.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I'll try to explain as simply as I can.........

If the Op wanted the option of Manchester or Stockport, they should have bought the Off-Peak Single, leaving an Advance quota free for someone else.

I hope that was clear enough.



Why?

You are missing the point that I was already on the train when the thought of a plan change cropped up.

Despite having the booking mail and Internet access to follow the link to the t&cs your beloved TOC who would be so robbed didn't manage to list this rule anywhere

 

[bb21]

Just a quick reminder, guys. Please make sure that the comments don't get personal.

 

[maniacmartin]

My opinion is that if you pay for a service from A to B, and use that service from A part of the way to B, then you have used part of the same service, not a different service

 

[hairyhandedfool]

...Look at it from another perspective. You have paid for a service - to be transported from A to B. If you do not use that service, then it is understandable that there is no penalty. If you use the service going from A to B, then you have used what you paid for, so that is also fine.

However if you use a service going from A to C, then that is not a service you paid for. You paid for a service from A to B, not to C, so you have not paid for the service you used.

Unlike some people, I don't believe that there is a right or wrong between the two interpretations, just pointing out that you can reach different conclusions depending on the angle from which you approach the question, both of which are logical.

....

There can be. See above....

I don't see how that answers....

If I stop at home, I've "stolen" the allocation from someone else who "might" have bought the ticket instead.

If I travel and get off at Stockport, I've "stolen" the allocation from someone else who "might" have bought the ticket instead.

I'm struggling to see the difference here.

....Surely the point of that post is to note that if the ticket is bought, no-one else can buy it? That's why I see no difference between the two.

If the point of the post was to say that not travelling is the same price as travelling short then yes there is a difference as I keep having to repeat over and over (despite a post claiming people understand that).

You are missing the point that I was already on the train when the thought of a plan change cropped up....

Oh FFS!...........

 

[VauxhallandI]

I don't see how that answers....



....Surely the point of that post is to note that if the ticket is bought, no-one else can buy it? That's why I see no difference between the two.

If the point of the post was to say that not travelling is the same price as travelling short then yes there is a difference as I keep having to repeat over and over (despite a post claiming people understand that).



Oh FFS!...........

Very funny. Do you realise people feel the same way about what you are saying?

 

[bb21]

I don't see how that answers....

You are talking about the problem as described, I am talking about the fundamental issues underlying his argument.

Again, depends on the angle you approach it.

 

[AndyLandy]

If the point of the post was to say that not travelling is the same price as travelling short then yes there is a difference as I keep having to repeat over and over (despite a post claiming people understand that).

The problem is that the system is contrived. If I travel 200 miles on a train, I've sat in a seat for two hours, the train I'm on has inflicted wear on 200 miles of track and used 200 miles-worth of fuel.

If I'm only on it for 100 miles, travelling for one hour, the running costs are cheaper. It costs the TOC less money to cart me 100 miles than it does 200.

So, there's no way that it's 'more expensive' for SWT to take me from Waterloo to Southampton than for them to take me to Weymouth, via Southampton. I'm using fewer resources over a shorter time period.

If I can travel to Weymouth for £14, but I get off at Southampton, there's no way the TOC can be 'out of pocket' because they've already taken me to Southampton in my journey to Weymouth.

The issue is simply the contrived nature of not releasing fares for specific journeys. But the majority of the travelling public won't accept this. Many of those who do understand it will still raise the objections I've listed above. The press will agree with them. The TOCs are fighting a losing battle by preventing travelling short on any ticket type.

For sure, if you're maximising revenue, then pricing each individual flow at the best price to deliver maximum returns is logical and the distance doesn't come into it. Maybe you know people in Southampton will pay more to get into London than people in Weymouth, so by removing the right to travel short, you can extract a larger amount of revenue, but the 'man on the street' will tell you that such behaviour is grossly unfair.

There have been scientific studies into how humans have an innate perception of fairness and to my mind this is exactly the sort of thing that will always fall into that category.

 

[455driver]

Who has forgotten that fares are tiered? There isnt just one Advance fare, one Off Peak fare and one Open fare, there might be 5 different Advance fares for a start
Lets say you want to travel from A to B and fares from A to B are priced at-
£5, £15, £25 and £35, Off peak £50 and open £75

But fares from A to C are priced at-
Advance £10, £20, £30 and £40, Off peak £60 and Open £100.

All the cheapest tiers to B might sell out quickly leaving just the £35 as the only available Advance ticket.

So you look at A to C and see the £20 is still available so buy that and get off early at B. Has the railway lost money, yes it has because the correct ticket would have been £35 (as all the allocated cheaper tickets from A to B were sold) so the railway has lost £15 on that flow.

 

[Goatboy]

Who has forgotten that fares are tiered? There isnt just one Advance fare, one Off Peak fare and one Open fare, there might be 5 different Advance fares for a start
Lets say you want to travel from A to B and fares from A to B are priced at-
£5, £15, £25 and £35, Off peak £50 and open £75

But fares from A to C are priced at-
Advance £10, £20, £30 and £40, Off peak £60 and Open £100.

All the cheapest tiers to B might sell out quickly leaving just the £35 as the only available Advance ticket.

So you look at A to C and see the £20 is still available so buy that and get off early at B. Has the railway lost money, yes it has because the correct ticket would have been £35 (as all the allocated cheaper tickets from A to B were sold) so the railway has lost £15 on that flow.

But the idea is that the advance tickets are there to fill trains. Every ticket bought to Stockport is a ticket that cannot be sold to Manchester either, so if it's about yield management buying a load of Stockport advances should increase the price of the Manchester Advances, too.

Therefore there exists no rational situation where a ticket further on the same train should be still available at a lower price than a shorter Advance.

You can't use Seat 15B for a London to Manchester advance at £40 if somebody has already booked that seat for a London to Stockport Advance at £50..